Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2004 Oct 18;2004(4):CD004129.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004129.pub2.

Force platform feedback for standing balance training after stroke

R Barclay-Goddard  1 , T Stevenson, W Poluha, M E K Moffatt, S P Taback
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Force platform feedback for standing balance training after stroke

R Barclay-Goddard et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Standing balance deficits are common in individuals after stroke. One way to address these deficits is to provide the individual with feedback from a force platform while balance activities are performed. The feedback can take visual and/or auditory form.

Objectives: To determine if visual or auditory force platform feedback improves the clinical and force platform standing balance outcomes in clients with stroke.

Search strategy: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register (last searched December 2003), and the following electronic bibliographic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2003), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2003), EMBASE (1974 to May 2003), CINAHL (1982 to May 2003), PEDro (May 2003), CIRRIE (May 2003) and REHABDATA (May 2003). Reference lists of articles were reviewed and manufacturers of equipment were contacted.

Selection criteria: Randomized controlled trials comparing force platform with visual feedback and/or auditory feedback to other balance treatments.

Data collection and analysis: Two reviewers independently assessed trials for inclusion, methodological quality, and data extraction. Trials were combined for meta-analysis according to outcome and type of feedback.

Main results: We included seven trials (246 participants). Force platform feedback did not improve clinical measures of balance when moving or walking (Berg Balance Scale and Timed Up and Go). Significant improvements in laboratory force platform indicators of stance symmetry were found for regimens using visual feedback (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.31 to -0.04, p = 0.04) and the concurrent visual and auditory feedback (weighted mean difference (WMD) -4.02, 95% CI -5.99 to -2.04, p = 0.00007). There were no significant effects on laboratory postural sway indicators, clinical outcomes or measures of function at follow-up assessment.

Reviewers' conclusions: Force platform feedback (visual or auditory) improved stance symmetry but not sway in standing, clinical balance outcomes or measures of independence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None known

Figures

Analysis 1.1
Analysis 1.1
Comparison 1 Clinical outcomes, Outcome 1 Berg Balance Scale ‐ visual feedback alone.
Analysis 1.2
Analysis 1.2
Comparison 1 Clinical outcomes, Outcome 2 Timed Up and Go ‐ visual feedback alone.
Analysis 2.1
Analysis 2.1
Comparison 2 Forceplatform outcomes ‐ visual feedback alone, Outcome 1 Centre of Pressure Position (Stance symmetry).
Analysis 2.2
Analysis 2.2
Comparison 2 Forceplatform outcomes ‐ visual feedback alone, Outcome 2 Centre of Pressure Behaviour (sway).
Analysis 3.1
Analysis 3.1
Comparison 3 Forceplate outcomes ‐ concurrent auditory and visual feedback, Outcome 1 Centre of Pressure Position (Stance symmetry).
Analysis 4.1
Analysis 4.1
Comparison 4 Forceplate outcomes ‐ visual feedback alone plus concurrent auditory and visual feedback, Outcome 1 Centre of Pressure Position (Stance symmetry).
Analysis 5.1
Analysis 5.1
Comparison 5 Followup ‐ 1 month or more, Outcome 1 Centre of Pressure Behaviour (sway) ‐ visual feedback alone.
Analysis 5.2
Analysis 5.2
Comparison 5 Followup ‐ 1 month or more, Outcome 2 Gross motor function ‐ visual feedback alone.
Analysis 5.3
Analysis 5.3
Comparison 5 Followup ‐ 1 month or more, Outcome 3 Activities of Daily Living ‐ visual feedback alone.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

  • doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004129

References

References to studies included in this review

    1. Chen I‐C, Cheng P‐T, Chen C‐L, Chen S‐C, Chung C‐Y, Yeh T‐H. Effects of balance training on hemiplegic stroke patients. Chang Gung Medical Journal 2002;25:583‐90. - PubMed
    1. Geiger RA, Allen JB, O'Keefe J, Hicks RR. Balance and mobility following stroke: effects of physical therapy interventions with and without biofeedback/forceplate training. Physical Therapy 2001;81:995‐1005. - PubMed
    1. Lee MY, Wong MK, Tang FT. Clinical evaluation of a new biofeedback standing balance training device. Journal of Medical Engineering and Technology 1996;20:60‐6. - PubMed
    2. Lee MY, Wong MK, Tang FT. Using biofeedback for standing steadiness, weight‐bearing training. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology 1996;15(6):112‐6.
    1. Sackley CM, Lincoln NB. Single blind randomized controlled trial of visual feedback after stroke: effects on stance symmetry and function. Disability and Rehabilitation 1997;19(12):536‐46. - PubMed
    1. Shumway‐Cook A, Anson D, Haller S. Postural sway biofeedback: its effects on reestablishing stance stability in hemiplegic patients. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1988;69:395‐400. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

    1. Bourbonnais D, Bilodeau S, Lepage Y, Beaudoin N, Gravel D, Forget R. Effect of force‐feedback treatments in patients with chronic motor deficits after a stroke. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2002;81(12):890‐7. - PubMed
    1. Cheng PT, Wu SH, Liaw MY, Wong AMK, Tang FT. Symmetrical body‐weight distribution training in stroke patients and its effect on fall prevention. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2001;82:1650‐4. - PubMed
    1. Chernikova L, Kashina E. Training of standing balance in rehabilitation of stroke patients (abstract). Proceedings of the 2nd World Congress in Neurological Rehabilitation. 1999:84.
    1. Seze M, Wiart L, Bon‐Saint Come A, Debelleix X, Seze M, Joseph PA, et al. Rehabilitation of postural disturbances of hemiplegic patients by using trunk control retraining during exploratory exercises. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2001;82:793‐800. - PubMed
    1. Fowler V, Carr J. The effect of auditory feedback about weight distribution during training of standing up following stroke (abstract). Proceedings of the 12th International Congress of the World Confederation for Physical Therapy. 1995:208.

Additional references

    1. Ballinger C, Ashburn A, Low J, Roderick P. Unpacking the black box of therapy ‐ a pilot study to describe occupational therapy and physiotherapy interventions for people with stroke. Clinical Rehabilitation 1999;13(4):301‐9. - PubMed
    1. Barclay‐Goddard R, Stevenson T, Ripat J. Physiotherapy in stroke rehabilitation: Bases for Canadian physiotherapists' choices of treatment. Proceedings of the 14th International World Confederation of Physical Therapy Congress. 2003.
    1. Berg K. Measuring balance in the elderly: a review. Physiotherapy Canada 1989;41(5):240‐6.
    1. Berg K, Wood‐Dauphinee S, Williams JI, Gayton D. Measuring balance in the elderly: preliminary development of an instrument. Physiotherapy Canada 1989;41(6):304‐11.
    1. Berg K, Wood‐Dauphinee S, Williams J, Maki B. Measuring balance in the elderly: validation of an instrument. Canadian Journal of Public Health 1992;83 (Suppl 2):s7‐s11. - PubMed

MeSH terms