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
. 2020 May 4;17(9):3188.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph17093188.

Agreement of Three Posturographic Force Plates in the Assessment of Postural Stability

Piotr Matłosz  1 , Justyna Wyszyńska  2 , Justyna Podgórska-Bednarz  2 , Justyna Leszczak  2 , Maciej Rachwał  2 , Krzysztof Przednowek  1 , Justyna Drzał-Grabiec  2 , Katarzyna Walicka-Cupryś  2 , Mariusz Drużbicki  2 , Emilian Zadarko  1
Affiliations

Agreement of Three Posturographic Force Plates in the Assessment of Postural Stability

Piotr Matłosz et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. .

Abstract

This study was designed to assess how the results obtained for three different posturographic platforms agreed with each other in an assessment of static postural stability. The study included 111 young healthy participants. A measurement of postural stability was made for each participant, with their eyes open and then closed, on each platform in a random order. The Romberg ratio, path length, and center of pressure (COP) area were analyzed. For all measures, significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed among the three force plates. The highest Spearman's rank correlation was observed between Alfa vs. CQStab2P (0.20 to 0.38), and the lowest between Alfa vs. AccuGait (-0.19 to 0.09). Similar results were obtained for the concordance correlation coefficient (0.10 to 0.22 for Alfa vs. CQStab2P and -0.6 to 0.02 for Alfa vs. AccuGait). Bland-Altman analysis for values standardized (z-scores) against AccuGait indicated a low level of agreement between compared platforms, with the largest error between AccuGait vs. Alfa, and a slightly lower error between AccuGait vs. CQStab2P or Alfa vs. CQStab2P. The 95% limits of agreement ranged from 2.38 to 7.16 (Alfa vs. AccuGait), 2.09 to 5.69 (CQStab2P vs. AccuGait), and 1.39 to 7.44 (AccuGait vs. Alfa) in COP length with eyes open and COP length Romberg ratio, respectively. Special care is recommended when comparing values relating to COPs from different devices that are analyzed by different software. Moreover, unperturbed stance tests among young healthy adults can be questioned as a valid postural control parameter.

Keywords: balance; center of pressure; stability; static platform; sway.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study population selection procedure.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Teasdale N., Simoneau M. Attentional demands for postural control: The effects of aging and sensory reintegration. Gait Posture. 2001;14:203–210. doi: 10.1016/S0966-6362(01)00134-5. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Corbeil P., Blouin J.S., Bégin F., Nougier V., Teasdale N. Perturbation of the postural control system induced by muscular fatigue. Gait Posture. 2003;18:92–100. doi: 10.1016/S0966-6362(02)00198-4. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Matłosz P., Domino G. Analysis of selected parameters of Judoists’ Junior Polish Representation fitness. Sci. Rev. Phys. Cult. 2015;5:303–308.
    1. Rogind H., Simonsen H., Era P., Bliddal H. Comparison of Kistler 9861A force platform and Chattecx Balance System for measurement of postural sway: Correlation and test-retest reliability. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sport. 2003;13:106–114. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0838.2003.01139.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cappello A., Bagalà F., Cedraro A., Chiari L. Non-linear re-calibration of force platforms. Gait Posture. 2011;33:724–726. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2011.02.008. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources