Does wobble board training improve balance in older adults? A systematic review

IF 0.8 Q4 REHABILITATION Physical Therapy Reviews Pub Date : 2021-10-08 DOI:10.1080/10833196.2021.1987042
Madawi A. ALJawaee, Michael D. Jones, P. Theobald, J. Williams
{"title":"Does wobble board training improve balance in older adults? A systematic review","authors":"Madawi A. ALJawaee, Michael D. Jones, P. Theobald, J. Williams","doi":"10.1080/10833196.2021.1987042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background Falls are a common and costly problem, with poor balance a significant contributor. Wobble boards are commonly used for balance enhancement. However, the efficacy of wobble board training is not well understood, particularly in the older adult. Objectives To appraise and synthesise literature pertaining to the effect of wobble board training on balance in older adults. Methods A systematic search of Medline, Scopus, EBSCO, CINAHL, Science Direct, and Google Scholar databases was conducted up to August 2020. Articles comparing balance before and after wobble board training were included and quality appraised using the modified Downs and Black checklist. Results Six relevant studies (n = 129) were identified for review: four randomised-controlled-trials, one pilot-study and one repeated-measures design. The overall weighted average percentages, calculated from those studies where possible suggested an improvement in Berg Balance Scale (or similar) was 4.4% and for timed-up and go, 6.3%. Mean effect sizes ranged from 0.09 to 0.96. Overall, there is conflicting evidence to support wobble training for balance improvement in older adults. Magnitude of real change was often small questioning the impact of such small improvements on overall balance function. Effect sizes for balance enhancement through wobble board training were modest, with the largest effects on multi-modal balance outcome measures, such as the Berg Balance Scale. The results indicate that if wobble board programmes are simple and of a sufficient ‘within session’ duration, then some improvements in balance can be demonstrated within 3-weeks. Conclusions The evidence suggests conflicting results for the improvement of balance with wobble board training in older adults. Where effects were seen their magnitude was modest. Future studies should focus on determining the optimal wobble board programme to enhance balance.","PeriodicalId":46541,"journal":{"name":"Physical Therapy Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physical Therapy Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10833196.2021.1987042","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract Background Falls are a common and costly problem, with poor balance a significant contributor. Wobble boards are commonly used for balance enhancement. However, the efficacy of wobble board training is not well understood, particularly in the older adult. Objectives To appraise and synthesise literature pertaining to the effect of wobble board training on balance in older adults. Methods A systematic search of Medline, Scopus, EBSCO, CINAHL, Science Direct, and Google Scholar databases was conducted up to August 2020. Articles comparing balance before and after wobble board training were included and quality appraised using the modified Downs and Black checklist. Results Six relevant studies (n = 129) were identified for review: four randomised-controlled-trials, one pilot-study and one repeated-measures design. The overall weighted average percentages, calculated from those studies where possible suggested an improvement in Berg Balance Scale (or similar) was 4.4% and for timed-up and go, 6.3%. Mean effect sizes ranged from 0.09 to 0.96. Overall, there is conflicting evidence to support wobble training for balance improvement in older adults. Magnitude of real change was often small questioning the impact of such small improvements on overall balance function. Effect sizes for balance enhancement through wobble board training were modest, with the largest effects on multi-modal balance outcome measures, such as the Berg Balance Scale. The results indicate that if wobble board programmes are simple and of a sufficient ‘within session’ duration, then some improvements in balance can be demonstrated within 3-weeks. Conclusions The evidence suggests conflicting results for the improvement of balance with wobble board training in older adults. Where effects were seen their magnitude was modest. Future studies should focus on determining the optimal wobble board programme to enhance balance.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
摇摆板训练能提高老年人的平衡能力吗?系统回顾
背景坠落是一个常见且代价高昂的问题,平衡性差是一个重要因素。摇摆板通常用于增强平衡。然而,摇摆板训练的效果还不是很清楚,特别是在老年人中。目的评价和综合有关摇摆板训练对老年人平衡能力影响的文献。方法系统检索截至2020年8月的Medline、Scopus、EBSCO、CINAHL、Science Direct和谷歌Scholar数据库。文章比较摆动板训练前后的平衡,并使用改进的Downs和Black检查表进行质量评价。结果纳入6项相关研究(n = 129): 4项随机对照试验、1项先导研究和1项重复测量设计。从这些可能的研究中计算出的总体加权平均百分比表明,伯格平衡量表(或类似量表)的改善为4.4%,而定时和go的改善为6.3%。平均效应量为0.09 ~ 0.96。总的来说,有相互矛盾的证据支持摇摆训练改善老年人的平衡。实际变化的幅度往往很小,质疑这种小改进对整体平衡功能的影响。通过摇摆板训练增强平衡的效应大小是适度的,对多模式平衡结果测量的影响最大,如伯格平衡量表。结果表明,如果摇摆板课程简单,并且有足够的“会议”持续时间,那么在平衡方面可以在3周内得到一些改善。结论:有证据表明,摇摆板训练对老年人平衡能力的改善结果存在矛盾。在观察到影响的地方,其影响程度是适度的。未来的研究应集中在确定最佳的摆动板方案,以提高平衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Physical Therapy Reviews
Physical Therapy Reviews REHABILITATION-
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Physical Therapy Reviews is an international journal which aims to publish contemporary reviews, discussion papers and editorials within physical therapy, and in those basic and clinical sciences which are the basis of physical therapy. The journal is aimed at all those involved in research, teaching and practice within the area of physical therapy. Reviews (both descriptive and systematic) are invited in the following areas, which reflect the breadth and diversity of practice within physical therapy: •neurological rehabilitation •movement and exercise •orthopaedics and rheumatology •manual therapy and massage •sports medicine •measurement •chest physiotherapy •electrotherapeutics •obstetrics and gynaecology •complementary therapies •professional issues •musculoskeletal rehabilitation
期刊最新文献
The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of tests used to assess the effects of power training in older adults: a systematic review Physical therapy treatment interventions and the effects thereof on clinical outcomes when addressing intra-pleural abnormalities in patients with trauma: protocol for a systematic review Motivational modulation enhances movement performance in Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review What influences patient decision making after anterior cruciate ligament injury in Australia; an internet survey What is the contribution of latissimus dorsi to trunk movement and control? A systematic review and meta-analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1