Balance Interventions to Improve Upright Balance Control and Balance Confidence in People With Motor-Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury or Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assist with clinical decision making, evidence syntheses are needed to demonstrate the efficacy of available interventions and examine the intervention components and dosage parameters. This systematic review and meta-analysis described the efficacy, components and dosage of interventions targeting upright balance control, balance confidence, and/or falls in adults with motor-incomplete spinal cord injury/disease (SCI/D). DATA SOURCES: A search strategy following the population, intervention, control, outcome framework was developed. Six databases were searched: APA PsychInfo, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, Emcare Nursing, Web of Science CC, and Medline. STUDY SELECTION: Title, abstract, and full-text screening were conducted by 2 researchers independently. Inclusion criteria included the following: (1) adults with chronic, motor-incomplete SCI/D; (2) physical intervention targeting upright postural control; and (3) clinical and/or biomechanical measures of upright balance control and/or balance confidence and/or documentation of falls. DATA EXTRACTION: Participant characteristics, balance intervention details, adverse events, and study results were extracted. The Downs and Black Checklist was used to assess methodological quality. Meta-analyses on pre-post intervention outcomes and a meta-regression of dosage were completed. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach was used to evaluate the quality of the evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: The search returned 1664 unique studies; 26 were included. Methodological quality was moderate to good. Participants were 500 individuals with SCI/D, aged 18-74 years (males: females = 2.4:1). Minor adverse events were reported in 8 studies (eg, muscle soreness and fatigue). Walking interventions and upright balance training with visual feedback had clinically meaningful and significant pooled effects on improving standing balance control. Only walking interventions had a significant pooled effect on improving balance confidence. There were no significant findings on dosage response. Few studies evaluated the effects of balance interventions on the occurrence of falls. CONCLUSIONS: Walking interventions and upright balance training with visual feedback had greater effects on upright balance control than conventional physiotherapy; however, the quality of the evidence was very low.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".