-
PloS One 2021To synthesise and analyse the current evidence regarding changes in joint position sense (JPS) and standing balance in people with whiplash-associated disorder (WAD)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To synthesise and analyse the current evidence regarding changes in joint position sense (JPS) and standing balance in people with whiplash-associated disorder (WAD) taking the presence or absence of dizziness into account.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, Embase, MEDLINE and APA PsycINFO were searched by two independent reviewers from inception until August 2020 and reference lists of all included studies were also reviewed.
STUDY SELECTION
Only cross-sectional studies that measured JPS and/or standing balance between people with WAD vs. healthy controls (HC) or people with WAD complaining of dizziness (WADD) vs. those not complaining of dizziness (WADND) were selected.
DATA EXTRACTION
Relevant data were extracted using specific checklists and quality assessment was performed using Downs and Black Scale (modified version).
DATA SYNTHESIS
Twenty-six studies were included. For JPS, data were synthesized for absolute error in the primary plane of movement for separate movement directions. For standing balance, data were synthesized for traditional time- and frequency domain sway parameters considering the conditions of eyes open (EO) and eyes closed (EC) separately. For meta-analysis, reduced JPS was observed in people with WAD compared to HC when the head was repositioned to a neutral head position (NHP) from rotation (standardised mean difference [SMD] = 0.43 [95%: 0.24-0.62]) and extension (0.33 [95%CI: 0.08-0.58]) or when the head was moved toward 50° rotation from a NHP (0.50 [0.05-0.96]). Similarly, people with WADD had reduced JPS compared to people with WADND when the head was repositioned to a NHP from rotation (0.52 [0.22-0.82]). Larger sway velocity and amplitude was found in people with WAD compared to HC for both EO (0.62 [0.37-0.88] and 0.78 [0.56-0.99], respectively) and EC (0.69 [0.46-0.91] and 0.80 [0.58-1.02]) conditions.
CONCLUSION
The observed changes of JPS and standing balance confirms deficits in sensorimotor control in people with WAD and especially in those with dizziness.
Topics: Animals; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dizziness; Head; Humans; Movement; Postural Balance; Whiplash Injuries
PubMed: 33831060
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249659 -
Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal... 2022A validated method to assess sitting and standing posture in a clinical setting is needed to guide diagnosis, treatment and evaluation of these postures. At present, no... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
A validated method to assess sitting and standing posture in a clinical setting is needed to guide diagnosis, treatment and evaluation of these postures. At present, no systematic overview of assessment methods, their clinimetric properties, and usability is available.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to provide such an overview and to interpret the results for clinical practice.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed according to international guidelines. Two independent reviewers assessed risk of bias, clinimetric values of the assessment methods, and their usability. Quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were determined according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group (GRADE).
RESULTS
Out of 27,680 records, 41 eligible studies were included. Thirty-two assessment instruments were identified, clustered into five categories. The methodological quality of 27 (66%) of the articles was moderate to good. Reliability was most frequently studied. Little information was found about validity and none about responsiveness.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on a moderate level of evidence, a tentative recommendation can be made to use a direct visual observation method with global posture recorded by a trained observer applying a rating scale.
Topics: Humans; Posture; Reproducibility of Results; Sitting Position
PubMed: 34366318
DOI: 10.3233/BMR-200073 -
Heliyon Apr 2024Sagittal imbalance can be caused by various etiologies and is among the most important indicators of spinal deformity. Sagittal balance can be restored through surgical... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Sagittal imbalance can be caused by various etiologies and is among the most important indicators of spinal deformity. Sagittal balance can be restored through surgical intervention based on several radiographic measures. The purpose of this study is to review the normal parameters in the sitting position, which are not well understood and could have significant implications for non-ambulatory patients.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed adhering to PRISMA Guidelines. Using R-software, the weighted means and 95% confidence intervals of the radiographic findings were calculated using a random effect model and significance testing using unpaired t-tests.
RESULTS
10 articles with a total of 1066 subjects reported radiographic measures of subjects with no spinal deformity in the sitting and standing position. In the healthy individual, standing sagittal vertical axis -16.8°was significantly less than sitting 28.4° (p < 0.0001), while standing lumbar lordosis 43.3°is significantly greater than sitting 21.3° (p < 0.0001). Thoracic kyphosis was not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.368). Standing sacral slope 34.3° was significantly greater than sitting 19.5° (p < 0.0001) and standing pelvic tilt 14.0° was significantly less than sitting 33.9° (p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS
There are key differences between standing and sitting postures, which could lead to undue stress on surgical implants and poor outcomes, especially for non-ambulatory populations. There is a need for more studies reporting sitting and standing radiographic measures in different postures and spinal conditions.
PubMed: 38590852
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e28545 -
Topics in Spinal Cord Injury... 2023Incomplete spinal cord injury (iSCI) often results in impaired balance leading to functional impairments. Recovery of standing balance ability is an important aim of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Incomplete spinal cord injury (iSCI) often results in impaired balance leading to functional impairments. Recovery of standing balance ability is an important aim of rehabilitative programs. However, limited information is available on effective balance training protocols for individuals with iSCI.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the methodological quality and effectiveness of various rehabilitation interventions for improving standing balance in individuals with iSCI.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed in SCOPUS, PEDro, PubMed, and Web of Science from inception until March 2021. Two independent reviewers screened articles for inclusion, extracted data, and evaluated methodological quality of the trials. PEDro Scale was used to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCT) and crossover studies while pre-post trials were assessed using the modified Downs and Black tool. A meta-analysis was performed to quantitatively describe the results. The random effects model was applied to present the pooled effect.
RESULTS
Ten RCTs with a total of 222 participants and 15 pre-post trials with 967 participants were analyzed. The mean PEDro score and modified Downs and Black score was 7/10 and 6/9, respectively. The pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) for controlled and uncontrolled trials of body weight-supported training (BWST) interventions was -0.26 (95% CI, -0.70 to 0.18; = .25) and 0.46 (95% CI, 0.33 to 0.59; < .001), respectively. The pooled effect size of -0.98 (95% CI, -1.93 to -0.03; = .04) indicated significant improvements in balance after a combination of BWST and stimulation. Pre-post studies analyzing the effect of virtual reality (VR) training interventions on Berg Balance Scale (BBS) scores in individuals with iSCI reported a mean difference (MD) of 4.22 (95% CI, 1.78 to 6.66; = .0007). Small effect sizes were seen in pre-post studies of VR+stimulation and aerobic exercise training interventions indicating no significant improvements after training on standing balance measures.
CONCLUSION
This study demonstrated weak evidence to support the use of BWST interventions for overground training for balance rehabilitation in individuals with iSCI. A combination of BWST with stimulation however showed promising results. There is a need for further RCTs in this field to generalize findings. Virtual reality-based balance training has shown significant improvement in standing balance post iSCI. However, these results are based on single group pre-post trials and lack appropriately powered RCTs involving a larger sample size to support this intervention. Given the importance of balance control underpinning all aspects of daily activities, there is a need for further well-designed and appropriately powered RCTs to evaluate specific features of training interventions to improve standing balance function in iSCI.
Topics: Humans; Spinal Cord Injuries; Postural Balance; Exercise; Standing Position; Virtual Reality
PubMed: 37235196
DOI: 10.46292/sci21-00065 -
Journal of Applied Biomechanics Dec 2022Load carriage experiments are typically performed from a linear perspective that assumes that movement variability is equivalent to error or noise in the neuromuscular... (Review)
Review
Load carriage experiments are typically performed from a linear perspective that assumes that movement variability is equivalent to error or noise in the neuromuscular system. A complimentary, nonlinear perspective that treats variability as the object of study has generated important results in movement science outside load carriage settings. To date, no systematic review has yet been conducted to understand how load carriage dynamics change from a nonlinear perspective. The goal of this systematic review is to fill that need. Relevant literature was extracted and reviewed for general trends involving nonlinear perspectives on load carriage. Nonlinear analyses that were used in the reviewed studies included sample, multiscale, and approximate entropy; the Lyapunov exponent; fractal analysis; and relative phase. In general, nonlinear tools successfully distinguish between unloaded and loaded conditions in standing and walking, although not in a consistent manner. The Lyapunov exponent and entropy were the most used nonlinear methods. Two noteworthy findings are that entropy in quiet standing studies tends to decrease, whereas the Lyapunov exponent in walking studies tends to increase, both due to added load. Thus, nonlinear analyses reveal altered load carriage dynamics, demonstrating promise in applying a nonlinear perspective to load carriage while also underscoring the need for more research.
Topics: Humans; Walking; Movement; Standing Position; Entropy; Nonlinear Dynamics
PubMed: 36170973
DOI: 10.1123/jab.2022-0062 -
Clinical Rehabilitation Feb 2018To investigate the validity and reliability of accelerometers to detect lying, sitting and standing postures or purposeful activity in hospitalized adults recovering... (Review)
Review
Validity and reliability of accelerometry in identification of lying, sitting, standing or purposeful activity in adult hospital inpatients recovering from acute or critical illness: a systematic review.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the validity and reliability of accelerometers to detect lying, sitting and standing postures or purposeful activity in hospitalized adults recovering from acute or critical illness.
DATA SOURCES
CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, Cochrane Library, PEDro, PsycINFO and SPORTDiscuss were searched from inception to June 2017. Professional networks and reference lists of relevant articles were also searched. The main selection criteria were hospitalized adults with acute or critical illness and studies investigating the validity or reliability of accelerometers to identify body position or purposeful activity.
REVIEW METHODS
Two authors individually assessed study eligibility and independently undertook methodological quality assessment and data extraction from selected articles. A narrative synthesis of the data was undertaken.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies, collectively enrolling 385 hospitalized participants, were identified. Populations included stroke, the elderly, acute exacerbation of chronic respiratory disease, abdominal surgery and those recovering from critical illness. Correlations of r = 0.36 to 0.98 and levels of agreement of κ = 0.28 to 0.98 were reported for identification of lying, sitting or standing postures. Correlations of r = 0.4 to 0.8 with general activity were found, with r = 0.94 and 0.96 reported for step count. The reliability of accelerometry measurement was investigated in one study evaluating step count quantification (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.99-1.00).
CONCLUSION
The validity of accelerometers to determine lying, sitting and standing postures or quantify purposeful activity within hospitalized acute or critically ill populations is variable. The reliability of accelerometry measurement within this setting remains largely unexplored.
Topics: Accelerometry; Activities of Daily Living; Acute Disease; Adult; Aged; Critical Illness; Female; Hospitalization; Humans; Immobilization; Inpatients; Male; Middle Aged; Postural Balance; Posture; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 28805075
DOI: 10.1177/0269215517724850 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2019The prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms among sedentary workers is high. Interventions that promote occupational standing or walking have been found to reduce... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms among sedentary workers is high. Interventions that promote occupational standing or walking have been found to reduce occupational sedentary time, but it is unclear whether these interventions ameliorate musculoskeletal symptoms in sedentary workers.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the effectiveness of workplace interventions to increase standing or walking for decreasing musculoskeletal symptoms in sedentary workers.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, OSH UPDATE, PEDro, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal up to January 2019. We also screened reference lists of primary studies and contacted experts to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised controlled trials (cluster-RCTs), quasi RCTs, and controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies of interventions to reduce or break up workplace sitting by encouraging standing or walking in the workplace among workers with musculoskeletal symptoms. The primary outcome was self-reported intensity or presence of musculoskeletal symptoms by body region and the impact of musculoskeletal symptoms such as pain-related disability. We considered work performance and productivity, sickness absenteeism, and adverse events such as venous disorders or perinatal complications as secondary outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles for study eligibility. These review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors to request additional data when required. We used GRADE considerations to assess the quality of evidence provided by studies that contributed to the meta-analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We found ten studies including three RCTs, five cluster RCTs, and two CBA studies with a total of 955 participants, all from high-income countries. Interventions targeted changes to the physical work environment such as provision of sit-stand or treadmill workstations (four studies), an activity tracker (two studies) for use in individual approaches, and multi-component interventions (five studies). We did not find any studies that specifically targeted only the organisational level components. Two studies assessed pain-related disability. Physical work environment There was no significant difference in the intensity of low back symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.80 to 0.10; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) nor in the intensity of upper back symptoms (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -.096 to 0.00; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) in the short term (less than six months) for interventions using sit-stand workstations compared to no intervention. No studies examined discomfort outcomes at medium (six to less than 12 months) or long term (12 months and more). No significant reduction in pain-related disability was noted when a sit-stand workstation was used compared to when no intervention was provided in the medium term (mean difference (MD) -0.4, 95% CI -2.70 to 1.90; 1 RCT; low-quality evidence). Individual approach There was no significant difference in the intensity or presence of low back symptoms (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.87 to 0.77; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), upper back symptoms (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.84; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), neck symptoms (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.78; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), shoulder symptoms (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.90; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), or elbow/wrist and hand symptoms (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.90; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) for interventions involving an activity tracker compared to an alternative intervention or no intervention in the short term. No studies provided outcomes at medium term, and only one study examined outcomes at long term. Organisational level No studies evaluated the effects of interventions solely targeted at the organisational level. Multi-component approach There was no significant difference in the proportion of participants reporting low back symptoms (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.27; 3 RCTs; low-quality evidence), neck symptoms (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.32; 3 RCTs; low-quality evidence), shoulder symptoms (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.12 to 5.80; 2 RCTs; very low-quality evidence), and upper back symptoms (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.32; 3 RCTs; low-quality evidence) for interventions using a multi-component approach compared to no intervention in the short term. Only one RCT examined outcomes at medium term and found no significant difference in low back symptoms (MD -0.40, 95% CI -1.95 to 1.15; 1 RCT; low-quality evidence), upper back symptoms (MD -0.70, 95% CI -2.12 to 0.72; low-quality evidence), and leg symptoms (MD -0.80, 95% CI -2.49 to 0.89; low-quality evidence). There was no significant difference in the proportion of participants reporting low back symptoms (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.40; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence), neck symptoms (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.08; two RCTs; low-quality evidence), and upper back symptoms (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.08 to 3.29; 2 RCTs; low-quality evidence) for interventions using a multi-component approach compared to no intervention in the long term. There was a statistically significant reduction in pain-related disability following a multi-component intervention compared to no intervention in the medium term (MD -8.80, 95% CI -17.46 to -0.14; 1 RCT; low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Currently available limited evidence does not show that interventions to increase standing or walking in the workplace reduced musculoskeletal symptoms among sedentary workers at short-, medium-, or long-term follow up. The quality of evidence is low or very low, largely due to study design and small sample sizes. Although the results of this review are not statistically significant, some interventions targeting the physical work environment are suggestive of an intervention effect. Therefore, in the future, larger cluster-RCTs recruiting participants with baseline musculoskeletal symptoms and long-term outcomes are needed to determine whether interventions to increase standing or walking can reduce musculoskeletal symptoms among sedentary workers and can be sustained over time.
Topics: Adult; Ergonomics; Humans; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Occupational Diseases; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sedentary Behavior; Standing Position; Walking; Workplace
PubMed: 31742666
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012487.pub2 -
European Journal of Preventive... Mar 2018Background Replacing sitting with standing is one of several recommendations to decrease sedentary time and increase the daily energy expenditure, but the difference in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Background Replacing sitting with standing is one of several recommendations to decrease sedentary time and increase the daily energy expenditure, but the difference in energy expenditure between standing versus sitting has been controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine this difference. Designs and methods We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar for observational and experimental studies that compared the energy expenditure of standing versus sitting. We calculated mean differences and 95% confidence intervals using a random effects model. We conducted different predefined subgroup analyses based on characteristics of participants and study design. Results We identified 658 studies and included 46 studies with 1184 participants for the final analysis. The mean difference in energy expenditure between sitting and standing was 0.15 kcal/min (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12-0.17). The difference among women was 0.1 kcal/min (95% CI 0.0-0.21), and was 0.19 kcal/min (95% CI 0.05-0.33) in men. Observational studies had a lower difference in energy expenditure (0.11 kcal/min, 95% CI 0.08-0.14) compared to randomised trials (0.2 kcal/min, 95% CI 0.12-0.28). By substituting sitting with standing for 6 hours/day, a 65 kg person will expend an additional 54 kcal/day. Assuming no increase in energy intake, this difference in energy expenditure would be translated into the energy content of about 2.5 kg of body fat mass in 1 year. Conclusions The substitution of sitting with standing could be a potential solution for a sedentary lifestyle to prevent weight gain in the long term. Future studies should aim to assess the effectiveness and feasibility of this strategy.
Topics: Cardiovascular Diseases; Energy Metabolism; Humans; Sedentary Behavior; Sitting Position; Standing Position; Weight Gain
PubMed: 29385357
DOI: 10.1177/2047487317752186 -
Clinical Spine Surgery Apr 2024Systematic review and meta-analysis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To report the ratio-of-differences between standing and sitting. To understand how sex and age influence these differences.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
Currently, spinal deformity surgery aims to realign the sagittal profile of the spine with-reference-to the standing posture resulting in overcorrection. New studies report significant disparities between standing and sitting spinal alignment.
METHODS
A comprehensive search and review of the published literature was performed on 4 platforms in accordance with the PRISMA 2009 checklist by 2 authors independently.
RESULTS
From 753 abstracts extracted from the databases, 38 papers involving 5423 patients were identified. sagittal vertical axis was more positive in sitting, with a pooled mean difference of 29.5 mm (95% CI: 17.9-41.0). Pelvic tilt (PT) was larger in sitting, with a pooled mean difference of 16.7 degrees (95% CI: 12.5-20.9), and a pooled odds ratio of 1.2(95% CI:1.1-1.3. P =0.001). Sacral Slope (SS) was smaller and lumbar lordosis (LL) was less lordotic in sitting, with a pooled mean difference of 15.0 degrees (95% CI: 11.918.1) and 21.1 degrees (95% CI:14.5-27.8), respectively, and a pooled odds ratio of 0.7 (95% CI: 0.6-0.8. P <0.001) and 0.7 (95% CI:0.6-0.7, P <0.001), respectively. Pelvic incidence and thoracic kyphosis was similar in sitting. Subgroup meta-analysis comparing odd ratio of standing to sitting showed: Among younger patients (age younger than 50), the PT and LL pooled odds-ratios were 1.4 and 0.7, respectively. Among older patients (age older than or equal to 50), the PT and LL pooled odds-ratios were 1.1 and 0.8, respectively. Among female patients, the SS pooled odds ratio was 0.6. Among male patients, the SS pooled odds ratio was 0.7.
CONCLUSION
When comparing sitting to standing, it gives a more positive sagittal vertical axis, a smaller SS and LL, and a larger PT. pelvic incidence and thoracic kyphosis remained similar. Younger and female patients have pronounced differences in SS, PT, and LL, suggesting the existence of age and sex variations, and its role to be considered when planning for spinal realignment surgeries. Clinical outcome studies are required to ascertain the impact of these findings.
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; Sitting Position; Lordosis; Kyphosis; Posture; Sacrum; Lumbar Vertebrae
PubMed: 37482640
DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000001501 -
International Journal of Environmental... Jan 2023Understanding the changes in cognitive processing that accompany changes in posture can expand our understanding of embodied cognition and open new avenues for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Understanding the changes in cognitive processing that accompany changes in posture can expand our understanding of embodied cognition and open new avenues for applications in (neuro)ergonomics. Recent studies have challenged the question of whether standing up alters cognitive performance. An electronic database search for randomized controlled trials was performed using Academic Search Complete, CINAHL Ultimate, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Web of Science following PRISMA guidelines, PICOS framework, and standard quality assessment criteria (SQAC). We pooled data from a total of 603 healthy young adults for incongruent and 578 for congruent stimuli and Stroop effect (mean age = 24 years). Using random-effects results, no difference was found between sitting and standing for the Stroop effect (Hedges' = 0.13, 95% CI = -0.04 to 0.29, = 0.134), even when comparing congruent (Hedges' = 0.10; 95% CI: -0.132 to 0.339; = 0.86; = 0.389) and incongruent (Hedges' = 0.18; 95% CI: -0.072 to 0.422; = 1.39; = 0.164) stimuli separately. Importantly, these results imply that changing from a seated to a standing posture in healthy young adults is unlikely to have detrimental effects on selective attention and cognitive control. To gain a full understanding of this phenomenon, further research should examine this effect in a population of healthy older adults, as well as in a population with pathology.
Topics: Humans; Young Adult; Aged; Adult; Stroop Test; Ergonomics; Posture; Sitting Position; Cognition
PubMed: 36767687
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20032319