Noninstrumented Clinical Assessment of Static Postural Stability in Chronic Ankle Instability: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 REHABILITATION
Journal of Sport Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2024-08-19 Print Date: 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1123/jsr.2023-0437
Yuta Koshino, Takumi Kobayashi
{"title":"Noninstrumented Clinical Assessment of Static Postural Stability in Chronic Ankle Instability: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Yuta Koshino, Takumi Kobayashi","doi":"10.1123/jsr.2023-0437","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>Several clinical tests are available to assess static postural stability in individuals with chronic ankle instability (CAI); however, it is unclear which test should be used.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine which noninstrumented clinical tests should be used to detect static postural stability deficits in individuals with CAI.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>We searched 4 databases from their inception to February 2023, and included studies comparing static postural stability in individuals with CAI and healthy controls using noninstrumented assessments. Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics, participant information, static postural stability assessment methods, and results. We calculated the pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval using a random effects meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of the evidence.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>Fourteen cross-sectional studies (293 participants with CAI and 284 healthy controls) were included. The meta-analysis showed no significant differences between the CAI and healthy groups in the double-leg stance condition of the Balance Error Scoring System (BESS) (SMD, -0.03; low-certainty evidence). Significant group differences were found in the BESS single-leg stance (SLS) on firm and foam surfaces (SLS firm: SMD, 0.47, very low-certainty evidence; SLS foam: SMD, 0.80, very low-certainty evidence), the tandem stance (TS) on firm and foam surfaces (TS firm: SMD, 0.39, low-certainty evidence; TS foam: SMD, 0.76, low-certainty evidence), and the total BESS in the foam conditions (SMD, 1.12, very low certainty evidence). Significant differences were also found between the CAI and healthy groups in the foot-lift (SMD, 1.24; very low certainty evidence) and time-in-balance tests (SMD, -0.94; very low certainty evidence).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Due to the large magnitude of the differences, the SLS foam, TS foam, and the total BESS in the foam conditions, as well as the foot-lift test or time-in-balance test, may be the most appropriate to clinically identify static postural stability impairment in individuals with CAI.</p>","PeriodicalId":50041,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Sport Rehabilitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Sport Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1123/jsr.2023-0437","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context: Several clinical tests are available to assess static postural stability in individuals with chronic ankle instability (CAI); however, it is unclear which test should be used.

Objective: To determine which noninstrumented clinical tests should be used to detect static postural stability deficits in individuals with CAI.

Evidence acquisition: We searched 4 databases from their inception to February 2023, and included studies comparing static postural stability in individuals with CAI and healthy controls using noninstrumented assessments. Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics, participant information, static postural stability assessment methods, and results. We calculated the pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval using a random effects meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of the evidence.

Evidence synthesis: Fourteen cross-sectional studies (293 participants with CAI and 284 healthy controls) were included. The meta-analysis showed no significant differences between the CAI and healthy groups in the double-leg stance condition of the Balance Error Scoring System (BESS) (SMD, -0.03; low-certainty evidence). Significant group differences were found in the BESS single-leg stance (SLS) on firm and foam surfaces (SLS firm: SMD, 0.47, very low-certainty evidence; SLS foam: SMD, 0.80, very low-certainty evidence), the tandem stance (TS) on firm and foam surfaces (TS firm: SMD, 0.39, low-certainty evidence; TS foam: SMD, 0.76, low-certainty evidence), and the total BESS in the foam conditions (SMD, 1.12, very low certainty evidence). Significant differences were also found between the CAI and healthy groups in the foot-lift (SMD, 1.24; very low certainty evidence) and time-in-balance tests (SMD, -0.94; very low certainty evidence).

Conclusions: Due to the large magnitude of the differences, the SLS foam, TS foam, and the total BESS in the foam conditions, as well as the foot-lift test or time-in-balance test, may be the most appropriate to clinically identify static postural stability impairment in individuals with CAI.

非仪器临床评估慢性踝关节失稳的静态姿势稳定性:系统回顾与元分析》。
背景:有几种临床测试可用于评估慢性踝关节不稳定(CAI)患者的静态姿势稳定性;然而,目前尚不清楚应使用哪种测试:目的:确定应使用哪些非仪器临床测试来检测 CAI 患者的静态姿势稳定性缺陷:我们检索了从开始到 2023 年 2 月的 4 个数据库,纳入了使用非仪器评估比较 CAI 患者和健康对照者静态姿势稳定性的研究。两名审稿人独立提取了研究特征、参与者信息、静态姿势稳定性评估方法和结果。我们使用随机效应荟萃分析法计算了汇总的标准化平均差(SMD)和95%置信区间,并评估了证据的确定性:共纳入 14 项横断面研究(293 名 CAI 患者和 284 名健康对照者)。荟萃分析表明,在平衡失误评分系统(BESS)的双腿站立条件下,CAI组和健康组之间没有显著差异(SMD,-0.03;低确定性证据)。在坚硬表面和泡沫表面的 BESS 单腿站立(SLS)中,发现了显著的组间差异(SLS 坚硬:SMD,0.47,极低确定性证据;SLS 泡沫:SMD,0.80,极低确定性证据),在坚实和泡沫表面上的双腿站立(TS)(TS firm:SMD,0.39,低确定性证据;TS 泡沫:SMD,0.76,低确定性证据),以及泡沫条件下的总 BESS(SMD,1.12,极低确定性证据)。CAI 组和健康组在抬脚测试(SMD,1.24;极低确定性证据)和平衡时间测试(SMD,-0.94;极低确定性证据)中也存在显著差异:由于差异较大,泡沫条件下的SLS泡沫、TS泡沫和总BESS,以及脚抬起测试或平衡时间测试,可能是临床上识别CAI患者静态姿势稳定性损伤的最合适方法。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Sport Rehabilitation
Journal of Sport Rehabilitation 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.90%
发文量
143
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Sport Rehabilitation (JSR) is your source for the latest peer-reviewed research in the field of sport rehabilitation. All members of the sports-medicine team will benefit from the wealth of important information in each issue. JSR is completely devoted to the rehabilitation of sport and exercise injuries, regardless of the age, gender, sport ability, level of fitness, or health status of the participant. JSR publishes peer-reviewed original research, systematic reviews/meta-analyses, critically appraised topics (CATs), case studies/series, and technical reports that directly affect the management and rehabilitation of injuries incurred during sport-related activities, irrespective of the individual’s age, gender, sport ability, level of fitness, or health status. The journal is intended to provide an international, multidisciplinary forum to serve the needs of all members of the sports medicine team, including athletic trainers/therapists, sport physical therapists/physiotherapists, sports medicine physicians, and other health care and medical professionals.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信