Objective Strength training as a form of exercise therapy has long been used to maintain or promote strength, but its effectiveness as a treatment intervention in chronic ankle instability is not fully understood. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of strength training compared to no exercise and neuromuscular control training on balance and self-reported function in people with chronic ankle instability (CAI). Methods Eight databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EBSCO, PEDro, CNKI, and WanFang) were searched in June 2020. Randomized controlled trials involving strength training conducted on individuals with CAI were included. Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers using a standardized form. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed by using the PEDro scale. In addition, the evaluation system (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation [GRADE]) was used to determine the strength of evidence. A total of 554 studies were initially screened, resulting in a final selection of 11 RCTs involving 428 participants, and 8 RCTs were included in the final meta-analysis. Compared with no exercise, strength training demonstrated some benefits in the Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT) (anterior: weighted mean difference [WMD] = 2.39, 95% CI = 0.60–4.18; posteromedial: WMD = 3.30, 95% CI = 0.24–6.35; posterolateral: WMD = 2.97, 95% CI = 0.37–5.57), but these intervention results did not reach the minimal detectable change values. Conclusions Available evidence showed that, compared with controls, strength training did not produce any minimal detectable changes on SEBT or Foot and Ankle Ability Measure scores in individuals with CAI. Clinicians should use strength training cautiously for improving balance and symptoms in CAI.
Objective: To evaluate effects of stationary cycling exercise on pain, function and stiffness in individuals with knee osteoarthritis. Data sources: Systematic search conducted in seven databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EBSCO, PEDro, and CNKI) from inception to September 2020. Review methods: Included studies were randomized-controlled trials involving stationary cycling exercise conducted on individuals with knee osteoarthritis. End-trial weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were analyzed, and random-effects models were used. Methodological quality and risk bias were assessed by using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale and Cochrane Collaboration tool, respectively. Results: Eleven studies with 724 participants were found, of which the final meta-analysis was performed with eight. Compared to a control (no exercise), stationary cycling exercise resulted in reduced pain (WMD 12.86, 95% CI 6.90–18.81) and improved sport performance (WMD 8.06, 95% CI 0.92–15.20); although most of the meta-analysis results were statistically significant, improvements in stiffness (WMD 11.47, 95% CI 4.69–18.25), function (WMD 8.28, 95% CI 2.44–14.11), symptoms (WMD 4.15, 95% CI −1.87 to 10.18), daily living (WMD 6.43, 95% CI 3.19 to 9.66) and quality of life (WMD 0.99, 95% CI −4.27 to 6.25) for individuals with knee osteoarthritis were not greater than the minimal clinically important difference values for each of these outcome measures. Conclusions: Stationary cycling exercise relieves pain and improves sport function in individuals with knee osteoarthritis, but may not be as clinically effective for improving stiffness, daily activity, and quality of life.
BackgroundAnkle proprioception plays a critical role in lower limb movement control. However, the relationship between ankle proprioception and fear of falling (FOF) in older people is still unclear.Objective(1) This study aims to develop a new device for measuring ankle inversion proprioceptive discrimination sensitivity during walking, i.e., the Ankle Inversion Discrimination Apparatus–Walking (AIDAW), and assess the test–retest reliability of the AIDAW in both young and older adults; (2) to evaluate the discriminant validity of the measure by comparing ankle proprioception during walking between the two groups; and (3) to explore convergent validity by determining to what extent the AIDAW proprioceptive scores correlate with Fall Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I) scores.Materials and methodsThe AIDAW was purpose-built to test ankle inversion proprioceptive discrimination sensitivity during walking. The area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) was calculated as the proprioceptive discrimination score. In total, 54 adults volunteered. Test–retest reliability was evaluated in 12 young and 12 older adults, and another 15 young and 15 older adults completed the comparison study. FOF was assessed by using the FES-I.ResultsThe test–retest reliability intraclass correlation coefficient ICC (3,1) value for the whole group was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.52–0.89). The ICC values of the young and older groups were 0.81 (95% CI: 0.46–0.94) and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.26–0.91), respectively. The Minimal Detectable Change with 90% confidence (MDC90) values for the young and older groups were 0.03 and 0.11, respectively. There was a significant difference between the AIDAW proprioceptive sensitivity scores for the young and older groups (0.78 ± 0.04 vs. 0.72 ± 0.08, F = 5.06, p = 0.033). Spearman’s correlation analysis showed that the FES-I scores were significantly and negatively correlated with the AIDAW scores (rho = −0.61, p = 0.015), with higher FOF associated with worse ankle proprioception.ConclusionThe AIDAW is a reliable and valid device for measuring ankle proprioception during walking in both young and older adults. Ankle inversion proprioceptive discrimination sensitivity during walking was found to be impaired in the elderly compared to young adults. This impairment was found to be strongly associated with FOF, suggesting that assessment and intervention for ankle proprioception in this population are needed to reduce the risk of falls.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.