Postural control in individuals with mental disorders: A systematic review and META-analysis

IF 1.8 3区医学 Q4 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL

Clinical Biomechanics Pub Date : 2026-02-01 Epub Date: 2025-12-20 DOI:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2025.106741

Carla Emilia Rossato , Aline Josiane Waclawovsky , Gabriela dos Santos de Souza , Debora Tornquist , Carlos Bolli Mota , Aron Ferreira da Silveira , Felipe Barreto Schuch

{"title":"Postural control in individuals with mental disorders: A systematic review and META-analysis","authors":"Carla Emilia Rossato , Aline Josiane Waclawovsky , Gabriela dos Santos de Souza , Debora Tornquist , Carlos Bolli Mota , Aron Ferreira da Silveira , Felipe Barreto Schuch","doi":"10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2025.106741","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Background: Some evidence suggests that people with mental disorders presents postural balances, but there is a scarcity of meta-analyses summarizing the evidence comparing posture of people with mental disorders with paired controls. Objectives: The aim of this study was to summarize the evidence comparing postural balance between individuals with mental disorders and healthy controls. Methods: We searched databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, SportDiscus and Web of Science) from inception until June 3, 2025, for studies comparing postural balance, assessed by center of pressure (COP), in people with and without mental disorders. The primary outcome was the COP in different axes (X and Y), assessed under multiple conditions (eyes open/close, feet apart/together). Random effects meta-analyses calculated the mean differences (MD) between groups Whenever relevant; heterogeneity was explored by meta-regression and subgroup analyses. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024554769). Findings: 33 studies were included, totaling 2.601 participants (1.424 with mental disorders [mean age = 39.30 ± 10.54 years, 43.05 % women] and 1.177 controls [mean age = 39.68 ± 10.35, 50.44 % women]. People with mental disorders showed greater COP area sway in the feet apart and eyes open (<em>N</em> = 12, MD = 0.20, 95 %CI 0.07, 0.32, I<sup>2</sup> = 62.67) and eyes closed conditions (<em>N</em> = 8, MD = 0.42, 95 %CI 0.15, 0.69, I<sup>2</sup> = 59.10) compared to controls. The majority of studies (96.96 %) had a low or moderate risk of bias. Interpretation: Individuals with mental disorders show alterations in postural balance compared to healthy controls.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50992,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Biomechanics","volume":"132 ","pages":"Article 106741"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Biomechanics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268003325003146","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Some evidence suggests that people with mental disorders presents postural balances, but there is a scarcity of meta-analyses summarizing the evidence comparing posture of people with mental disorders with paired controls. Objectives: The aim of this study was to summarize the evidence comparing postural balance between individuals with mental disorders and healthy controls. Methods: We searched databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, SportDiscus and Web of Science) from inception until June 3, 2025, for studies comparing postural balance, assessed by center of pressure (COP), in people with and without mental disorders. The primary outcome was the COP in different axes (X and Y), assessed under multiple conditions (eyes open/close, feet apart/together). Random effects meta-analyses calculated the mean differences (MD) between groups Whenever relevant; heterogeneity was explored by meta-regression and subgroup analyses. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024554769). Findings: 33 studies were included, totaling 2.601 participants (1.424 with mental disorders [mean age = 39.30 ± 10.54 years, 43.05 % women] and 1.177 controls [mean age = 39.68 ± 10.35, 50.44 % women]. People with mental disorders showed greater COP area sway in the feet apart and eyes open (N = 12, MD = 0.20, 95 %CI 0.07, 0.32, I² = 62.67) and eyes closed conditions (N = 8, MD = 0.42, 95 %CI 0.15, 0.69, I² = 59.10) compared to controls. The majority of studies (96.96 %) had a low or moderate risk of bias. Interpretation: Individuals with mental disorders show alterations in postural balance compared to healthy controls.

查看原文本刊更多论文

精神障碍患者的体位控制：一项系统综述和meta分析

背景：一些证据表明，精神障碍患者表现出姿势平衡，但缺乏荟萃分析，总结了精神障碍患者与配对对照者姿势的证据。目的：本研究的目的是总结比较精神障碍个体和健康对照者的姿势平衡的证据。方法：我们检索了数据库（PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase， SportDiscus和Web of Science），从成立到2025年6月3日，以比较有精神障碍和无精神障碍人群的姿势平衡，以压力中心（COP）评估。主要结果是不同轴（X和Y）的COP，在多种条件下（睁眼/闭眼，两脚分开/并拢）进行评估。随机效应荟萃分析计算各组间相关的平均差异（MD）；通过meta回归和亚组分析探讨异质性。纳入研究的偏倚风险采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表（NOS）进行评估。该协议已注册到PROSPERO （CRD42024554769）。结果：纳入33项研究，共纳入2.601名受试者，其中精神障碍患者1.424人[平均年龄= 39.30±10.54岁，女性43.05%]，对照组1.177人[平均年龄= 39.68±10.35岁，女性50.44%]。与对照组相比，精神障碍患者在两脚分开、睁眼（N = 12, MD = 0.20, 95% CI 0.07, 0.32, I2 = 62.67）和闭眼（N = 8, MD = 0.42, 95% CI 0.15, 0.69, I2 = 59.10）时的COP面积摆动更大。大多数研究（96.96%）具有低或中等偏倚风险。解释：与健康对照相比，患有精神障碍的个体表现出姿势平衡的改变。

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

Clinical Biomechanics 医学-工程：生物医学

CiteScore

3.30

自引率

5.60%

发文量

189

审稿时长

12.3 weeks

期刊介绍： Clinical Biomechanics is an international multidisciplinary journal of biomechanics with a focus on medical and clinical applications of new knowledge in the field. The science of biomechanics helps explain the causes of cell, tissue, organ and body system disorders, and supports clinicians in the diagnosis, prognosis and evaluation of treatment methods and technologies. Clinical Biomechanics aims to strengthen the links between laboratory and clinic by publishing cutting-edge biomechanics research which helps to explain the causes of injury and disease, and which provides evidence contributing to improved clinical management. A rigorous peer review system is employed and every attempt is made to process and publish top-quality papers promptly. Clinical Biomechanics explores all facets of body system, organ, tissue and cell biomechanics, with an emphasis on medical and clinical applications of the basic science aspects. The role of basic science is therefore recognized in a medical or clinical context. The readership of the journal closely reflects its multi-disciplinary contents, being a balance of scientists, engineers and clinicians. The contents are in the form of research papers, brief reports, review papers and correspondence, whilst special interest issues and supplements are published from time to time. Disciplines covered include biomechanics and mechanobiology at all scales, bioengineering and use of tissue engineering and biomaterials for clinical applications, biophysics, as well as biomechanical aspects of medical robotics, ergonomics, physical and occupational therapeutics and rehabilitation.