Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Effectiveness of the aquatic physical therapy exercises to improve balance, gait, quality of life and reduce fall-related outcomes in healthy community-dwelling older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Renato S. Melo ,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    renatomelo10@hotmail.com

    Affiliations Department of Physical Therapy, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE), Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil, Post-Graduate Program in Physical Therapy, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE), Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil

    ⨯
  • Caroline Stefany Ferreira Cardeira,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft

    Affiliation Department of Physical Therapy, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE), Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil

    ⨯
  • Damaris Scarleth A. Rezende,

    Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft

    Affiliation Department of Physical Therapy, Faculdade de Integração do Sertão (FIS), Serra Talhada, Pernambuco, Brazil

    ⨯
  • Vinícius J. Guimarães-do-Carmo,

    Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Supervision, Writing – original draft

    Affiliation Department of Physical Therapy, Faculdade de Integração do Sertão (FIS), Serra Talhada, Pernambuco, Brazil

    ⨯
  • Andrea Lemos,

    Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Department of Physical Therapy, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE), Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil, Post-Graduate Program in Physical Therapy, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE), Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil

    ⨯
  • Alberto Galvão de Moura-Filho

    Roles Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft

    Affiliations Department of Physical Therapy, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE), Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil, Post-Graduate Program in Physical Therapy, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE), Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil

    ⨯

Abstract

Background

Opting to use aquatic or land-based physical therapy exercises to improve balance, gait, quality of life and reduce fall-related outcomes in community-dwelling older adults (CDOAs) is still a questionable clinical decision for physiotherapists.

Objective

Assess the quality of evidence from randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials that used aquatic physical therapy exercises to improve balance, gait, quality of life and reduce fall-related outcomes in CDOAs.

Methods

Articles were surveyed in the following databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, LILACS, Web of Science, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), PEDro, CINAHL, SciELO and Google Scholar, published in any language, up to July 31, 2023. Two independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed evidence quality. The risk of bias of the trials was evaluated by the Cochrane tool and evidence quality by GRADE approach. Review Manager software was used to conduct the meta-analyses.

Results

3007 articles were identified in the searches, remaining 33 studies to be read in full, with 11 trials being eligible for this systematic review. The trials included presented low evidence quality for the balance, gait, quality of life and fear of falling. Land-based and aquatic physical therapy exercises improved the outcomes analyzed; however, aquatic physical therapy exercises were more effective in improving balance, gait, quality of life and reducing fear of falling in CDOAs. The meta-analysis showed that engaging in aquatic physical therapy exercises increases the functional reach, through of the anterior displacement of the center of pressure of CDOAs by 6.36cm, compared to land-based physical therapy exercises, assessed by the Functional Reach test: [CI:5.22 to 7.50], (p<0.00001), presenting low quality evidence.

Conclusions

Aquatic physical therapy exercises are more effective than their land-based counterparts in enhancing balance, gait, quality of life and reducing the fear of falling in CDOAs. However, due to methodological limitations of the trials, this clinical decision remains inconclusive. It is suggested that new trials be conducted with greater methodological rigor, in order to provide high-quality evidence on the use of the aquatic physical therapy exercises to improve the outcomes analyzed in CDOAs.

Citation: Melo RS, Cardeira CSF, Rezende DSA, Guimarães-do-Carmo VJ, Lemos A, de Moura-Filho AG (2023) Effectiveness of the aquatic physical therapy exercises to improve balance, gait, quality of life and reduce fall-related outcomes in healthy community-dwelling older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 18(9): e0291193. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291193

Editor: Aqeel M. Alenazi, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, SAUDI ARABIA

Received: March 20, 2023; Accepted: August 24, 2023; Published: September 8, 2023

Copyright: © 2023 Melo et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020191916.

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Balance disorders show a prevalence of 68% among the population 65 years and older and are characterized by imbalance, gait problems, instability, nausea, dizziness, vertigo and frequent falls [1]. Falls are among the main causes of morbidity and mortality in community-dwelling older adults (CDOAs), and every year, one-third of these individuals suffer falls [2]. In addition, nearly half of older people over the age of 80 years have suffered falls and between one-fifth and one-third have sustained moderate or serious injuries, including fractures [2], which account for approximately 70% of accidental deaths in people over 75 years of age [3].

The main risk factors for falls in CDOAs are linked to aging and the decline in the following systems: musculoskeletal, sensory, cardiovascular and cognitive function, and changes in one or more of these systems have been associated with a greater risk of falling in CDOAS [4]. The prevalence of falls in CDOAs has increased due to aging of the world population, making falls prevention a significant challenge for health professionals, particularly physiotherapists [5].

According to the clinical fall prevention guidelines of both the American and British Geriatrics Societies [6], therapeutic exercise is a key factor in preventing falls in CDOAs. A therapeutic exercise program should include strength training, balance, gait and motor coordination, and studies with exercise programs longer than 12 weeks, involving 1–3 weekly sessions demonstrated the best results [6]. A decline in the risk of falling in CDOAs can be promoted by therapeutic exercise programs aimed specifically at rehabilitating balance and gait, with high frequency, duration and intensity [7].

Among the main therapeutic exercise programs used by physiotherapists to improve the balance and gait of CDOAs are land and water-based exercises. However, some CDOAs have difficulty performing land-based exercises involving balance, gait and motor coordination, due to fear of falling or by postural instability caused by the complexity of the motor task during exercise, which hinders their movement on land [8,9]. Aquatic physical therapy is an alternative to its land-based counterpart for these individuals, since the heated water, buoyancy and subsequent decrease in fear of falling enable these older adults to move more easily in the therapeutic swimming pool [8], promoting greater confidence, motor dexterity, range of motion and center of mass displacement.

Thus, similar to land-based physical therapy, aquatic physical therapy challenges the physical capacities of older adults, using the physical properties of water, such as hydrostatic pressure, buoyancy, viscosity and turbulence, to stimulate the tonic-postural reactions and balance of CDOAs [8]. While subjects stand in the water and maintain a stable upright stance over the base of support, water movement and turbulence overloading the postural control systems during standing, and reaching movement (while feet are fixed on the pools floor) and during change of support movement (e.g., stepping), this relative motion of water causing displacement of either the body’s center of mass (via water motion and turbulence) or in the base of support, thus challenging the postural control system and it continuously stimulates a reorganization of body balance stability [10], which can make the aquatic physical therapy exercises a differential in terms of rehabilitation of balance and gait in CDOAs.

Given the results that demonstrate the efficacy of both interventions in improving the balance, gait, quality of life and reduce fall-related outcomes in CDOAs [11–16], opting for aquatic or land-based physical therapy exercises to improve these outcomes has become a questionable clinical decision for physiotherapists. This is because no systematic reviews have assessed the evidence quality of these trials, and no meta-analyses have shown if these interventions to be equivalent, or whether one of them is superior to another in improving these outcomes in CDOAs, thereby justifying the present study. Thus, the aim of this systematic review was to assess the evidence quality of randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials that used aquatic physical therapy exercises to improve balance, gait, quality of life and reduce fall-related outcomes in CDOAs.

Methods

This systematic review was conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) [17], and was previously registered in the PROSPERO, under number CRD42020191916 [18].

Trials identification and selection

Ten electronic databases were used to search for trials: MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, LILACS, Web of Science, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), PEDro, CINAHL, SciELO and Google Scholar. The last search was on July 31, 2023. There were no restrictions for time of publication or language and a manual search was conducted in the references contained in the selected articles in order to guarantee that relevant studies were included in this systematic review.

The search strategies used in the databases are shown in Appendix 1.

The articles found in each database were analyzed independently by each of the two reviewers (Rezende DSA and Guimarães-do-Carmo VJ), who judged their eligibility by title and abstract reading, according to the following inclusion criteria: randomized or quasi-randomized trials, including individuals over 60 years of age of either sex, with no physical problems, cognitive or neurological impairments, except vestibular dysfunction, and who walking without the need for assistive devices. The intervention had to consist of aquatic physical therapy exercises with at least one of the following outcomes: balance, gait, quality of life, fall-related outcomes, dizziness, vertigo, pallor and/or vomiting.

In the first analysis, the articles were divided into eligible or ineligible for this review. Articles whose abstracts could not clearly establish their eligibility or those with potential to be included in this systematic review, were selected for subsequent reading of the entire text. Disagreements regarding the inclusion or not of an article were resolved by the two reviewers and, for cases where no consensus was achieved, a third reviewer was asked to arbitrate (Melo RS).

For articles with a lack of information, the authors of the present review sent an email to the corresponding authors, in order to request the necessary information. It is important to underscore that we received answers from all the authors who were contacted requesting information to determine their inclusion or not in the systematic review.

Methodological assessment of the trials

Assessment of the evidence quality and risk of bias.

The evidence quality of the trials was assessed by the GRADE approach [19]. According to this tool, five items can interfere in the evidence quality of a clinical trial: risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision and publication bias. For each of these items, evidence was considered based on the following classification: not serious (no decrease in points), serious (decrease of 1 point) or very serious (decrease of 2 points), scored depending on the risk of bias contained in the trials.

For the GRADE risk of bias item, the Cochrane tool [20] was used to assess the risk of bias of the articles, analyzing the following stages: randomization, allocation concealment, blinding of volunteers and outcome assessors, lost or missing data, selective outcome description and others (if applicable). Each of these stages of the risk of bias instrument was assessed and the following classifications attributed: low risk of bias (green), unclear risk of bias (yellow) and high risk of bias (red), according to the biases present in the trials assessed.

Participants.

The trials were included if the volunteers were CDOAs, of either sex, aged 60 years or older, with no physical problems, cognitive or neurological impairments, except vestibular dysfunction, and who walking without the need for assistive devices.

Interventions.

The intervention group were treated with aquatic exercises managed/supervised exclusively by physical therapists, which stimulate balance and the vestibular system. Intervention control could have occurred with land-based physical therapy exercises, any other intervention or no intervention.

Outcomes assessed.

The outcomes analyzed in this systematic review were divided into three categories: motor skills, clinical and otoneurological outcomes.

The motor skills assessed were balance and gait, which are also the primary outcomes of this review. Included were articles that evaluated balance based on the speed of center of pressure oscillation (anterior-posterior and mediolateral), or the area of center of pressure oscillation, assessed by a force platform or computerized dynamic posturography.

Also included were articles that investigated the balance of older adults using the following clinical tests or scales: Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Performance Oriented Mobility Assessment (POMA) Scale, Romberg Test, One Leg Standing Test, Functional Reach Test (FRT), or any other instrument used by the authors.

In relation to gait, articles that assessed any walking condition were included, such as gait speed, distance between feet, step width, or any other instrument that evaluates locomotion. Also included were studies that used the Timed Up and Go (TUG) Test, Dynamic Gait Index (DGI), accelerometers, camcorders, photos or materials such as paint to mark the footprints of older adults on the floor or on paper, and those that used talc or sand.

The clinical and otoneurological outcomes were the secondary outcomes of this review. The clinical outcomes were quality of life and fall-related outcomes. Quality of life could have been assessed by the SF-36 Questionnaire, or by the WHOQOL, or by any other instrument that the authors have used to assess quality of life. The fall-related outcomes were three: fear of falling, risk of falls and episodes of falls, respectively, evaluated by the instruments: Falls Efficacy Scale (FES), Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC), Fall Risk Screening Tool (FRST), Fall Risk Index (FRI) and self-reports or calendar/diary of falls. The otoneurological outcomes were dizziness, vertigo, pallor and vomiting, and trials that applied any instrument to measure these outcomes were considered, including the self-reports of the volunteers.

Data extraction and analysis.

The data included in this review were extracted and recorded on a standardized form created by the authors. These data were entered independently into the Review Manager (RevMan) program, version 5.4, by both reviewers for subsequent verification of the information and discussion of possible discrepancies.

Data homogeneity was analyzed using the heterogeneity test; study data with a p-value of more than 0.05 were considered homogeneous and those with a heterogeneity index (I2) up to 30% were classified as having low heterogeneity. In the first analysis, a fixed-effect meta-analysis was considered; however, when methodological or clinical heterogeneities were observed in the studies, random-effect meta-analysis was selected. The meta-analyses were conducted in RevMan software.

Results

Flow of trials through the review

A total of 3007 studies were identified, in line with search strategies, on the ten databases analyzed. After duplicate articles were removed, 2039 articles remained for analysis of titles and abstracts, 33 of which were read in their entirety. After reading, 11 trials [21–31] were considered eligible for the present review, nine of which are randomized [21,23,25–31] and two quasi-randomized [22,24]. Fig 1 shows the article selection flowchart, as recommended by PRISMA.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Flowchart of the studies analyzed in this systematic review, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291193.g001

Of the excluded articles, eleven contained only the intervention group [14,32–41], six trials included volunteers with neurological and/or orthopedic diseases in their samples [42–47], three had individuals younger than 60 years [15,16,48], one trial included older adults that using walking aids device [49], and one was a cross-sectional study [13].

Characteristics of the included trials

All eleven trials used aquatic physical therapy exercises for the intervention group and the control group was submitted in eight trials to land-based physical therapy exercises [21,23,24,26–30]. In three trials, the control group did not engage in exercises [22,23,31] and Elbar et al [25] conducted a crossover trial, where the intervention group started with aquatic physical therapy exercises and the control group performed none, reversing the interventions after 12 weeks. The characteristics of the trials analyzed are described in Tables 1 and 2.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Summary of the included trials.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291193.t001

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Methodological aspects and conclusions of the trials that used the aquatic and land physical therapy exercises to improve balance, gait, quality of life and reduce fear of falling in community-dwelling older adults.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291193.t002

Risk of bias

Nine of the eleven eligible trials mentioned randomization; however, only five [25–28,30] clearly described how this process took place. Two trials [22,24] exhibited high risk of bias, since they only reported that the sample was divided into control and intervention groups.

Only four of the trials used allocation concealment, via opaque envelopes [25,26,28,30], while seven made no mention of this procedure, indicating high risk of bias.

None of the trials reported sample blinding and only five controlled the blinding of outcome assessors [21,23,25,27,30]. In other words, in most of the studies, the examiners were aware of which group the older adults belonged to (control or intervention), suggesting high risk of bias for these trials.

Sample losses occurred in nine of the eleven trials; however, none of these conducted intention-to-treat analysis. One of the studies contained a selective description of the outcome, indicating high risk of bias for those with sample losses that did not carry out intention-to-treat analysis [21,23–29,31] and Cunha et al [23] selectively described the outcome data.

Another bias, identified as ‘other bias’ in Cochrane risk of bias tool was the difference between the average age of the older adults in both groups. Only two trials [25,31] showed no difference between the ages of the participants. The difference between the average ages of the subjects in eight studies ranged between 1–8 and 1–6 years younger in the intervention and control group, respectively. Cunha et al [23] did not provide the values of the average age of the groups.

This difference between the average ages of the groups may under or overestimate the effect size of the interventions, thereby resulting in high risk of bias for the trials that displayed different average ages between the groups, which can be observed in Figs 2 and 3 and Table 3, illustrating the critical risk of bias analysis of the trials (grouped or separate) and the quality of GRADE evidence, respectively.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. Risk of bias summary of the included trials assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291193.g002

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 3. Risk of bias of each included trial assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291193.g003

thumbnail
Download:
Table 3. Quality of evidence of the trials that used aquatic and land physical therapy exercises to improve balance, gait, quality of life and reduce fear of falling in community-dwelling older adults.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291193.t003

Participants

The eleven trials included in this systematic review contained a total of 395 older adults and investigated whether aquatic physical therapy exercises are effective in improving balance, gait, and quality of life and reducing fall-related outcomes in this population. The intervention (aquatic physical therapy) and land-based or control (did not perform exercises) groups consisted of 168 and 180 CDOAs, respectively. Cunha et al [23] did not specify sample size in each group; however, 47 CDOAs remained at the end of the trial. We emailed the authors several times to obtain their data, but none of them responded.

Interventions

The interventions contained similar therapeutic exercise programs, favoring meta-analyses. The therapeutic exercises performed by both groups were based on strength, muscle stretching, balance, gait and motor coordination, conducted in a therapeutic swimming pool or on land [21,26–30]. Only Douris et al [24] did not provide a detailed description of which therapeutic exercises were used in the interventions, reporting only that they were water and land-based.

Outcome measures

Nine of the eleven trials assessed balance [21–26,28,29,31], seven gait [21–23,26–28,30] and two included the quality of life and fear of falling [23,27].

The trials used different instruments to assess the balance of the older adults. Five of the nine trials that evaluated balance used the BBS [21,23,24,26,31], three the POMA Scale [22,23,31], two the FRT [28,29] and one used a force platform [25]. It is important to underscore that some studies used more than one instrument to assess the balance of the older individuals in their samples.

In order to analyze gait, four studies used the TUG [23,26–28], two [22,23] the POMA Scale, one the Brazilian version of the Older American Resources and Services Questionnaire [30] and one assessed gait based on the DGI, Tandem Gait and gait speed, measured with a stopwatch [21].

Two articles evaluated quality of life and fear of falling and used the same instruments: the SF-36 Questionnaire (assessing all domains of this instrument) and Falls Efficacy Scale [23,27], respectively. The otoneurological outcomes (dizziness, vertigo, pallor and vomiting) were not included in any of the trials analyzed here.

Meta-analyses

Three meta-analyses were conducted in this systematic review, two on the effects of aquatic physical therapy exercises on balance and one on gait.

Meta-analyses on balance were performed with the data reported by Silva et al [28] and Simmons et al [29], who used the FRT, while Bruni et al [22] and Vale et al [31] assessed balance via the POMA Scale. The meta-analysis of functional mobility (gait speed) was carried out using the data of three trials: Franciulli et al [26], Oh et al [27] and Silva et al [28], who evaluated functional mobility using the Timed Up and Go (Figs 4–6).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 4. Comparison between the effects of the aquatic and land-based physical therapy exercises to improve balance of community-dwelling older adults, assessed by the functional reach test.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291193.g004

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 5. Comparison between the effects of the aquatic physical therapy exercises and not performing exercises to improve balance of community-dwelling older women, assessed by the performance oriented mobility assessment scale.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291193.g005

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 6. Comparison between the effects of the aquatic and land-based physical therapy exercises to improve functional mobility (gait speed) of community-dwelling older adults, assessed by the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291193.g006

Due to the differences between trials, in terms of session duration and total intervention time, we used the random effect to conduct the three meta-analyses.

A further meta-analysis could be performed in this review, on the balance outcome. The meta-analysis of balance, assessed by the BBS, could not be conducted due to the way the results were presented by the authors. Avelar et al [21] and Douris et al [24] published their data in figures but did not report the means and standard deviations of each outcome, and Cunha et al [23] provided the group means without the standard deviations. We emailed the authors to obtain these data, and Avelar et al [21] and Douris et al [24] replied that they no longer had this informations and after numerous attempts, Cunha et al [23] did not reply.

Two other trials also used the BBS to assess balance; however, Franciulli et al’s [26] sample was composed of CDOAs of both sexes and that of Vale et al [31] only older women, precluding a meta-analysis on the balance outcome assessed by the BBS in this review.

Discussion

This is the first systematic review that assessed the evidence quality of the trials that used aquatic physical therapy exercises to enhance balance, gait, quality of life and reduce fall-related outcomes in CDOAs.

Eleven trials were analyzed and, although balance, gait and quality of life improved and fear of falling declined in CDOAs after the interventions, the quality of this evidence is low, due to the methodological limitations and biases present in the trials.

The main methodological limitations and biases observed were related to the three categories: biases in sample selection, methodological and traits of the older adults. As such, we decided to score and discuss them separately, as follows.

Sample selection biases

Randomization was not reported by Bruni et al [22] and Douris et al [24] and four trials [21,23,29,31] failed to describe how it was conducted. This stage should be prioritized in clinical trials, since it guarantees intergroup homogeneity (intervention and control), thereby controlling selection bias. Another aspect absent in seven trials [21–24,27,29,31] was allocation concealment, a methodological process adopted to prevent researchers from knowing the group allocation of each volunteer beforehand.

The studies analyzed did not exhibit scientific rigor in these two stages, especially in allocation concealment, demonstrating that these sample selection biases should be better controlled in future trials on the topic, given that trials without allocation concealment overestimated the effect size of interventions by up to 30% [50].

Methodological biases

Not controlling blinding of outcome assessors was another serious bias identified in six [22,24,26,28,29,31] of the eleven trials analyzed. Blinding of outcome assessors provides strong reliability of the findings presented by preventing prior knowledge of sample allocation from interfering in their response to treatment (conduction bias), or outcome assessment (detection bias). The lack of blinding of outcome assessors reduced the evidence quality of the trials, making their findings questionable, since studies that are not double-blind overestimate the size effect of interventions by 17% [50], demonstrating why there should be greater control of the blinding of outcome assessors in future trials.

Another bias observed in the trials analyzed was sample loss. Nine [21,23–29,31] of the eleven studies reported sample losses and none conducted intention-to-treat analysis. Intention-to-treat analysis allows all participants to be monitored until the end of the trial, irrespective of what occurs with some of them, thereby controlling sample loss bias. Excluding participants who did not remain until the end of the trial from statistical analysis may overestimate the effect size of the interventions, and intention-to-treat analysis aims at controlling this bias [51].

Another important limitation identified in the trials was comparison between interventions. Two trials [22,31] compared a group submitted to aquatic physical therapy exercises with one that performed no exercises, and when the aim of the trial is to analyze the effectiveness of a treatment, similar interventions are applied in terms of exercise characteristics, session duration, number of days per week and the total period, making these interventions comparable. This allows authors to conclude at the end of the trial whether the interventions are equivalent, or if any of them is superior in improving the outcomes studied, thereby helping in clinical decision-making.

When this does not occur and the trial compares the averages of the intervention and control groups, without submitting the latter to any intervention, it is expected that the intervention group will obtain the best post-treatment results, as observed in the two trials [22,31]. The absence of treatment for the control group makes it difficult to a clinical decision-making about the aquatic physical therapy exercises of these trials, representing a limitation in this regard for them.

Another trial [25] also did not compare simultaneous physical therapy exercises in water and on land. A crossover trial was conducted with the intervention group performing aquatic physical therapy exercises and the control group none. After twelve weeks, the control group initiated intervention with aquatic physical therapy exercises and the intervention group did not exercise for the next twelve weeks.

Thus, eight [21,23,24,26–30] of the eleven trials analyzed compared the effectiveness between aquatic and land-based physical therapy exercises. This comparison model should be maintained in future trials because it helps guide decision making and the clinical practice of the physiotherapists.

Finally, it is worth noting that only two trials [25,28], of the eleven trials analyzed in this systematic review performed the calculation to estimate the size of their samples. This led to a small total number of volunteers, of only 395 older adults in the eleven trials, which is very little, and makes it very difficult for the results of these studies to be generalized, being one more methodological problem found in the analyzed trials and which must be corrected by future trials on the topic.

Biases related to the traits of the older adults

An important bias identified in the trials was the disproportionate age range of the CDOAs in the intervention and control groups. Only two of the studies showed no difference in the average age of the CDOAs [25,31], while five trials [21,22,24,26,30] demonstrated a difference, with average age variations between 1–8 years between one group and another, and the intervention group (aquatic physical therapy exercises) always exhibiting the youngest age groups.

This difference between the average ages of the intervention and control groups creates confounding bias in the studies, since at the end of the trial it can be questioned whether the outcomes analyzed improved in the intervention group by the aquatic physical therapy exercises or if this occurred because the participants were younger. This is a relevant question, since several studies have found that balance and gait worsen, favoring falls, with an increase in age in older individuals [52–63].

Another possible bias in the trials analyzed was the presence of sensory disorders in the older adults, such as hearing loss and vestibular dysfunctions, which have been widely associated with aging [64–67]. The trials did not report whether the samples exhibited these disorders, which were not exclusion criteria for any of the trials. This information is valuable, because several studies have reported that sensorineural hearing loss is a frequent finding in older people [68–70], and that older adults with hearing loss have worse balance, limited mobility and a greater likelihood of falls [71–79].

These balance and gait problems are also observed in children, adolescents and adults with hearing loss [80–89], suggesting that hearing loss may have a negative effect on balance and gait at any age. On the other hand, the use of hearing aids and cochlear implants increases auditory capacity and has improved the balance and gait, and reduced the risk of falls in older people with hearing loss [90–99], possibly due to the new auditory opportunities provided by these devices, suggesting that hearing input is not neutral in balance and motor skills [100,101].

This improvement in the balance of older adults with the help of hearing aids or cochlear implants may be justified, suggesting that sound signals transmitted to these individuals serve as fixed environmental reference points [102–104], providing spatial maps of the environment and better space-time orientation and balance [104,105]. This raises the question of whether it might be the moment to break paradigms and include hearing as another sensory system responsible for regulating human body balance [106].

Another uncertainty in the trial samples, also related to hearing loss and aging [107,108], is the presence of older people with vestibular dysfunction. This information is important since in some cases, one of the inclusion criteria for the older adults was to have a history of falls in the last six months, and vestibular dysfunction is the main cause of falls in the older adults, in addition to being a frequent finding in this population [109,120]. Balance and gait are altered in older people with vestibular dysfunctions, making them more susceptible to falls [121–133]. Thus, the presence of older individuals with hearing loss and/or vestibular dysfunctions in the trial samples analyzed would cause further confounding bias and may lead to underestimating the effect size of interventions, due to the greater balance and gait difficulty experienced by these individuals.

The difference between the average ages of the intervention and control groups, and the presence of the hearing loss and vestibular dysfunction in CDOAs are biases that should be controlled in future trials, since without hearing loss or vestibular dysfunction, the young old may obtain satisfactory results more rapidly, given their better balance and gait performance.

On the other hand, with hearing loss and vestibular dysfunction, old-old adults may demonstrate positive results later, because their balance and gait are more compromised. Thus, CDOAs can require different time periods to exhibit satisfactory results in balance, gait, quality of life and reducing fall-related outcomes. Age group, and the presence of the hearing loss and vestibular dysfunction may be serious confounding biases for future studies on the topic.

A suggestion for future trials, in order to avoid these biases, is block randomization according to older adults from each decade. In addition, older individuals with and without hearing loss and vestibular dysfunction should be randomized to make the groups more homogeneous in terms of age and the presence of hearing loss and vestibular dysfunction [134–136].

Thus, at the end of the trial, will be able to perform subgroup-analyses, in order to observe the effect of interventions in CDOAs in relation to age range, presence or absence of hearing loss and vestibular dysfunction, and determine whether the interventions were effective in improving balance, gait, quality of life and reducing fall-related outcomes in CDOAs of all age groups with and without hearing loss and vestibular dysfunction and thereby help guide clinical practice on the topic.

It is important to underscore that the difference between the age ranges of the CDOAs was a confounding bias included in the analysis of risk of bias and quality of the evidence in this review. The presence of hearing loss and vestibular dysfunction was not included, since we are uncertain whether these older adults were part of the trials, but we opted to mention the effect of hearing loss and vestibular dysfunction on the balance of older people, so that future trials on the topic can control these outcomes in their samples.

Effectiveness of the aquatic physical therapy exercises in improving balance and gait speed (functional mobility) of healthy community-dwelling older adults (meta-analyses)

Meta-analyses on balance demonstrated that engaging in aquatic physical therapy exercises increases the functional reach, through of the anterior displacement of the center of pressure of CDOAs by 6.36cm, compared to their land-based counterparts, assessed by the FRT (p<0.00001), while the meta-analysis evaluated by POMA scale did not demonstrate significant differences between performing or not performing aquatic physical therapy exercises (p = 0.05), based on low-quality evidence (Figs 4 and 5 and Table 4).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 4. Quality of evidence of the trials that used aquatic physical therapy exercises to improve balance and functional mobility (gait speed) of community-dwelling older adults (meta-analysis).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291193.t004

There were no significant differences between performing aquatic or land-based physical therapy exercises to improve functional mobility (gait speed) in the CDOAs (p = 0.07), measured by TUG, based on low-quality evidence, according Fig 6 and Table 4. It is important to emphasize that the TUG score is inversely proportional, such that the less time needed to complete the test, the faster the functional mobility (gait speed) of older adults.

These data are valuable for physiotherapists, since they show a clinical improvement in the balance assessed by the FRT and a trend towards improvement (as the black diamond touches the line of nullity) in the balance and gait speed of CDOAs, assessed, respectively, by the POMA Scale and the TUG, promoted by aquatic physical therapy exercises. These results guiding clinical practice and making it possible to analyze the risk of falling in this population after these interventions.

The literature contains several studies able to predict falls in CDOAs, based on the cutoff point of balance and gait assessment instruments [137–153]. Despite the differences in cutoff points, which indicate the fall prediction of these studies, we decided to discuss fall prediction in the older participants of this review, based on the averages obtained in meta-analyses and thereby identify which physical therapy exercises (aquatic or land-based) are more effective in decreasing the risk of falls in CDOAs.

A recent systematic review [154] found that the average of untrained CDOAs in the FRT was 26.6cm (CI:25.1 to 28.0). Another investigation reported that untrained CDOAs with a history of falling as assessed by the FRT obtained an average of 14.7cm [155]. The meta-analysis on the FRT demonstrated that aquatic or land-based physical therapy exercises resulted in averages above 26.6cm, showing the efficacy of the two physical therapy interventions in improving the balance of CDOAs. However, those who engaged in aquatic physical therapy exercises displayed a clinical improvement 6.36cm higher than those submitted to land-based exercises, demonstrating the greater efficacy of the former in improving the functional reach, through of the anterior displacement of the center of pressure of CDOAs and reducing their risk of falls.

We found no literature article with normative data on POMA scale values in CDOAs, or any cutoff point to predict falls, which hindered discussing meta-analysis data from the POMA scale. In addition, the POMA scale isolated seems not to be a consistent instrument for predicting the risk of falls in CDOAs [156].

Performing aquatic physical therapy exercises showed a downward trend the TUG time by 0.29 seconds, increasing functional mobility (gait speed) in CDOAs, compared to land-based physical therapy exercises. Literature reports differ in their cutoff point to predict the risk of falls in CDOAs assessed by the TUG, ranging between 8.5 and 20 seconds [157–163]. The highest agreement in cutoff points of the studies was between 11 and 12.4 seconds [164–167], a value we used to predict the risk of falls in CDOAs, related to the gait speed of this review.

The meta-analysis on functional mobility (gait speed) assessed by the TUG showed that both physical therapy interventions resulted in averages below 12.4 seconds in CDOAs, which demonstrated the efficacy of both physical therapy interventions in reducing falls in this population. However, in one of the trials [26], the post-test average of the land-based physical therapy exercise group was above 12.4 seconds, showing that aquatic physical therapy exercises promoted an even higher clinical improvement in functional mobility (gait speed) of CDOAs and a decline in their risk of falling.

Despite these findings, the evidence quality was low for all outcomes. Due to this low evidence quality of the trials involved in the meta-analyses, these findings should be interpreted with caution, because the estimate of the effect could be better proven, or refuted by future trials that present better methodological quality, according to the classification of the GRADE approach [20].

It is important to underscore that older adults with vestibulopathy exhibit slower gait speed [168] and that lower TUG (>11.1 seconds) and DGI scores (≤18 points) were correlated with falls in this population [169]. Thus, the average TUG meta-analysis scores indicate that aquatic physical therapy exercises can also be effective in improving balance, gait, and reducing the risk of falls in older adults with vestibular dysfunctions, since in two of the three trials, post-test averages were less than 11.1 seconds.

In addition to analyzing risk of falls, the TUG has also been used to observe the association between functional mobility (gait speed) and activities of daily living, morbidity and mortality in CDOAs [170–173], demonstrating also potential to quantify the effectiveness of the vestibular physical therapy [174], outcomes that can be analyzed in future trials on the topic.

Other considerations

Despite the limitations and biases discussed above, the trials analyzed here exhibit positive characteristics, which should be mentioned and maintained in future trials. Ten trials described the physical therapy exercises used in the interventions (aquatic and land-based), except for Douris et al [24]. This information is very valuable, since it may help guide aquatic and land-based physical therapy exercise prescription to improve balance, gait, quality of life, and reduce fear of falling in CDOAs, making it possible to replicate these exercises in future trials and clinical practice (Appendix 2).

Another aspect that can be considered in future trials is to use more sensitive instruments to assess outcomes, such as dynamic computerized posturography or force platforms to evaluate balance; and accelerometers, software and camcorders to assess gait, in addition to validated clinical tests and scales. It is important to emphasize that there are normative data that predict the risk of falls for this population using these instruments, which can be applied in future trials to observe the efficacy of interventions in improving balance and gait and reducing falls in CDOAs [175–178].

In addition, future trials that use clinical tests or scales could also describe which motor tasks of these instruments the CDOAs had difficulty executing, since these tasks could receive greater attention and targeted rehabilitation to improve their performance in clinical practice.

The present systematic review found that aquatic physical therapy exercises were more effective than their land-based counterparts in improving balance, gait, quality of life, and reducing the fear of falling in CDOAs. During our literature search, we found several similar investigations, but these involved older adults with orthopedic or neurological disorders [179–184]. However, this review aimed at examining the issue from a health promotion and prevention standpoint, given that physiotherapists do not only work with rehabilitation. As such, this study provides data that confirm physiotherapists’ role in health promotion and prevention of age-related comorbidities.

An important gap observed in the trials analyzed was not including the otoneurological symptoms such as dizziness and vertigo, which are related to postural instabilities, imbalance and falls, commonly found in CDOAs and frequent in older adults with vestibulopathy. These outcomes could be included and analyzed in future trials in order to provide evidence on the effect of aquatic physical therapy exercises on the otoneurological symptoms of CDOAs, given that some evidences suggest positive effects of these exercises for individuals with vestibular hypofunction [15,16].

In addition, gaze stabilization exercises and otolithic repositioning maneuvers are considered key exercises for vestibular rehabilitation, demonstrating moderate-to-high evidence quality in reducing otoneurological symptoms and improving balance, gait, quality of life, and reducing falls in older adults with benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) [185–195]. However, in addition to these exercises, there is a need for specific rehabilitation of the limits of stability, balance and gait, and therapeutic balance exercises have also demonstrated effectiveness in rehabilitating of the postural adjustments, providing better stability, balance and gait to older people with vestibular hypofunction [196–204].

As shown in this systematic review, aquatic physical therapy exercises were more effective in improving balance, gait, quality of life, and reducing the fear of falling in CDOAs. Thus, aquatic physical therapy may be a complementary therapy alternative for physiotherapists who also treat older individuals with vestibular hypofunction, in order to maintain the results achieved with balance exercises or vestibular rehabilitation maneuvers in older adults with BPPV and persistent residual dizziness.

Furthermore, aquatic physical therapy exercises may be an alternative for older adults concerned about performing land-based exercises, due to their comorbidities, fear of falling or postural instability, triggered by the complexity of the motor task [205–207], which may favor falls [208]. This shows the need for permanent physical therapy interventions for CDOAs, to improve these outcomes, since fear of falling is a common feeling in this population [209–218] and frequent in those with vestibulopathy [219–222], which may limit their movement and trigger other motor problems, such as kinesiophobia.

Finally, land-based physical therapy exercises also promoted a clinical improvement in the outcomes obtained by CDOAs and should be prioritized, given that gait, functional and leisure activities of daily living are performed on land. Thus, we believe that physical therapy treatment should include both exercises to promote more safety and stability for older adults, using aquatic physical therapy exercises when necessary, and a training program better suited to the individual’s reality, by prescribing land-based exercises when they exhibit greater body stability.

This systematic review observed that aquatic physical therapy exercises improved balance, gait, quality of life, and reduced fear of falling in CDOAs in trials in which the intervention program consisted of sessions lasting 30 minutes or longer, twice or more a week for at least five weeks [21–31]. These data may help guide future trials using aquatic physical therapy exercises for CDOAs and the clinical decision-making of physiotherapists.

The limitation of this systematic review was not searching in thesis and dissertation databases.

Conclusion and implications for future trials

Aquatic physical therapy exercises were more effective than their land-based counterparts in improving balance, gait, quality of life, and reducing fear of falling in CDOAs. However, due to the low evidence quality, the results of the trials analyzed here should be interpreted with caution.

Low evidence quality on the topic and the lack of information in the trials on the presence or absence of adverse effects caused by the two interventions hindered analysis of the benefits and adverse effects of the interventions, meaning this clinical decision remains inconclusive. Any estimate presented by this review regarding a recommendation involving aquatic physical therapy exercises to improve balance, gait, quality of life and reduce fear of falling in CDOAs would be uncertain, inconclusive or insufficient.

Given the low evidence quality observed in this review, we suggest that future trials on the topic be proposed, with better methodological quality to promote high-quality evidence on the effectiveness of aquatic physical therapy exercises in order to improve balance, gait, quality of life, and reduce fall-related outcomes in CDOAs. Future trials should control biases related to sample selection, blinding of outcome assessors, sample losses, or conduct intention-to-treat analysis, control average participant age, the presence of hearing loss and vestibular dysfunction in the sample.

We also suggest that future trials observe, in addition to balance and gait, clinical, functional and otoneurological outcomes, such as dizziness, vertigo, functionality, performance in activities of daily living and leisure, also emphasizing the fall-related outcomes and the quality of life of older adults, since, as shown in the present review, only two of the eleven trials analyzed these outcomes.

Moreover, future trials could also investigate the costs of these interventions and include a follow-up period, in order to determine how long the effects of these interventions (aquatic and land-based) last in CDOAs. This information is valuable because it will provide theoretical-scientific support to guide physical therapy clinical practice on the topic and ensure that interventions are based on high-quality methodological evidence.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. PRISMA checklist of items to include when reporting a systematic review involving a network meta-analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291193.s001

(DOCX)

S1 Appendix. Search strategies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291193.s002

(DOCX)

S2 Appendix. Description of the therapeutic exercises used in the interventions of the trials included in this systematic review.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291193.s003

(DOCX)

References

  1. 1. Eibling D. Balance disorders in older adults. Clin Geriatr Med. 2018; 34: 175–81. pmid:29661330
  2. 2. Ambrose AF, Paul G, Hausdorff JM. Risk factors for falls among older adults: a review of the literature. Maturitas. 2013; 75: 51–61. pmid:23523272
  3. 3. Simoceli L, Bittar RMS, Bottino MA, Bento RF. Diagnostic approach of balance in the elderly: preliminary results. Braz J Otorhinolaringol. 2003; 69: 772–7.
  4. 4. Rubenstein LZ. Falls in older people: epidemiology, risk factors and strategies for prevention. Age Ageing. 2006; 35: 37–41.
  5. 5. Bergström U, Jonsson H, Gustafson Y, Pettersson U, Stenlund H, Svensson O. The hip fracture incidence curve is shifting to the right. Acta Orthop. 2009; 80: 520–4. pmid:19916682
  6. 6. American Geriatrics Society, British Geriatrics Society, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Panel on Falls Prevention. Guideline for the prevention of falls in older persons. J Am Geriatri Soc. 2001; 49: 664–72.
  7. 7. Rose D. Preventing falls among older adults: no “one size suits all” intervention strategy. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2008; 45: 1153–66. pmid:19235117
  8. 8. Morris DM. Aquatic therapy to improve balance dysfunction in older adults. Top Geriatr Rehabil. 2010; 26: 104–119.
  9. 9. Scarmagnan GS, Mello SCM, Lino TB, Barbieri FA, Christofoletti G. Negative effect of task complexity on the balance and mobility of healthy older adults. Rev Bras Geriatr Gerontol. 2021; 24: e200120.
  10. 10. Melzer I, Elbar O, Tsedek I, Oddsson LIE. A water-based training program that include perturbation exercises to improve stepping responses in older adults: study protocol for a randomized controlled cross-over trial. BMC Geriatr. 2008; 9: 19. pmid:18706103
  11. 11. Wong RMY, Chong KC, Law SW, Ho WT, Li J, Chui CS, et al. The effectiveness of exercises on fall and fracture prevention amongst community elderlies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Translat. 2020; 24: 58–65. pmid:32695605
  12. 12. Matla J, Filar-Mierzwa K, Scislowska-Czarnecka A, Jankowicz-Szymanska A, Bac A. The influence of the Physiotherapeutic program on selected static and dynamic foot indicatiors and the balance of elderly women depending on the ground stability. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18: 4660.
  13. 13. Booth CE. Water exercise and its effect on balance and gait to reduce the risk of falling in older adults. Activities, Adaptation & Aging. 2004; 28: 45–57.
  14. 14. Resende SM, Rassi CM, Viana FP. Effects of hydrotherapy in balance and prevention of falls among elderly woman. Braz J Phys Ther. 2008; 12: 57–63.
  15. 15. Gabilan YPL, Perracini MR, Munhoz MSL, Ganança FF. Aquatic physiotherapy for vestibular rehabilitation in patients with unilateral vestibular hypofunction: exploratory prospective study. J Vestib Res. 2008; 18: 139–46. pmid:19126984
  16. 16. Pereira CMM, Vale JSP, Oliveira WP, Pinto DS, Cal RVR, Azevedo YJ, et al. Aquatic physiotherapy: a vestibular rehabilitation option. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2021; 87: 649–54. pmid:32035856
  17. 17. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372: 71.
  18. 18. Melo RS, Rezende D, Guimarães V. Effectiveness of aquatic exercises to improve motor skills, clinical outcomes and reduce otoneurological symptoms in the elderly: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020191916. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020191916
  19. 19. Brozek JL, Canelo-Aybar C, Akl EA, Bowen JM, Bucher J, Chiu WA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 30; the GRADE approach to assessing the certainty of modeled evidence-an overview in the context of health decision-making. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021; 129: 138–50.
  20. 20. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011; 343: d5928. pmid:22008217
  21. 21. Avelar NCP, Bastone AC, Alcântara MA, Gomes WF. Effectiveness of aquatic and non-aquatic lower limb muscle endurance training in the static and dynamic balance of elderly people. Braz J Phys Ther. 2010; 14: 229–36. pmid:20730368
  22. 22. Bruni BM, Granado FB, Prado RA. Evaluation of postural equilibrium in aged practitioners of group hydrotherapy. O Mundo da Saúde. 2008; 32: 56–63.
  23. 23. Cunha MF, Lazzareschi L, Gantus MC, Suman MR, Silva CCP, Parizi CC, et al. The physical therapy influence in the prevention of falls in elderly in the community: comparative study. Motriz. 2009; 15: 527–36.
  24. 24. Douris P, Southard V, Varga C, Schauss W, Gennaro C, Reiss A. The effect of land and aquatic exercise on balance scores in older adults. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2003; 26: 3–6.
  25. 25. Elbar O, Tzedek I, Vered E, Shvarth G, Friger M, Melzer I. A water-based training program that includes pertubation exercises improves speed of voluntary stepping in older adults: a randomized controlled cross-over trial. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2013; 56: 134–40.
  26. 26. Franciulli PM, Souza GB, Albiach JF, Santos KCP, Barros LO, Santos NT, et al. Effectiveness of hydrotherapy and kinesiotherapy in elderly patients with history of falls. Estud Interdiscipl Envelhec. 2015; 20: 671–86.
  27. 27. Oh S, Lim JM, Kim Y, Kim M, Song W, Yoon B. Comparison of the effects of water-and land-based exercises on the physical function and quality of life in community-dwelling elderly people with history of falling: a single blind, randomized controlled trial. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2015; 60: 288–93. pmid:25522928
  28. 28. Silva CR, Magalhães LFR, Chaves FMG, Vieira ECN, Adames APR, Brauns ISD. Effects of aquatic physiotherapy versus conventional physical therapy on the risk of fall in the elderly: a randomized clinical trial. Fisio Brasil. 2020; 21: 253–64.
  29. 29. Simmons V, Hansen PD. Effectiveness of water exercise on postural mobility in the well elderly: na experimental study on balance enhancement. J Gerontol A Biol Med Sci. 1996; 51: 233–8.
  30. 30. Tavares AC, Sacchelli T. Comparison of kinesiotherapy and hydrotherapy in the elderly. Rev Neurocienc. 2009; 17: 213–9.
  31. 31. Vale FA, Voos MC, Brumini C, Suda EY, Silva RL, Caromano FA. Balance as an additional effect of strength and flexibility aquatic training in sedentary lifestyle elderly women. Curr Gerontol Geriatr Res. 2020: 1895473. pmid:32411217
  32. 32. Carvalho RGS, Cezar GC, Assis KV, Araújo SRS. Improving the balance and reducing the risk of falling through the method Halliwick in a group of women. Fisio Brasil. 2009; 10: 424–9.
  33. 33. Cunha MCB, Alonso AC, Silva TM, Rapahel ACB, Mota CF. Ai Chi: aquatic relaxing effects on functional performance and quality of life in elderly. Fisioter Mov. 2010; 23: 409–14.
  34. 34. Lim HS, Roh SY, Yoon S. Na 8-week aquatic exercise program is effective at impoving gait stability of the elderly. J Phys Ther Sci. 2013; 25: 1467–70.
  35. 35. Lim HS, Yoon S. The influence of short-term aquatic training on obstacle crossing in gait by the elderly. J Phys Ther Sci. 2014; 26: 1219–22. pmid:25202184
  36. 36. Lim HS, Yoon S. The training and detraining effects of 8 weeks of water exercise on obstacle avoidance in gait by thr elderly. J Phys Ther Sci. 2014; 26: 1215–8.
  37. 37. Meereis ECW, Favretto C, Souza J, Marques CLS, Gonçalves MP, Mota CB. Analyze of balance after hydrotherapy intervention. Rev Bras Geriatr Gerontol. 2013; 16: 41–7.
  38. 38. Meereis ECW, Favretto C, Souza J, Gonçalves MP, Mota CB. Influence of hydrokinetic therapy in postural balance of institutionalized elderly people. Motriz. 2013; 19: 269–77.
  39. 39. Oliveira TR Sousa EGD, Castro LTG, Santos PAS, Araújo RL, Gouveia GPM. Analysis of functionality in elderly after the practice of resistance exercises in aquatic environment. Fisio Brasil. 2019; 20: 704–12.
  40. 40. Salem SI, Hassan ZM, Ismail SM. Impact of water based exercises on balance in elderly women. J Med Sci Clin Res. 2016; 4: 12613–20.
  41. 41. Vendrusculo AP, Vieira GB, Ribeiro CSP, Cunha AFA, Munhoz LB, Tassinari CCR, et al. Effects of aquatic therapy on quality of life of elderly. Fisio Brasil. 2013; 14: 237–30.
  42. 42. Lord S, Mitchell D, Williams P. Effects of water exercise on balance and related factors in older people. Aust J Physiother. 1993; 39: 217–22.
  43. 43. Devereux K, Robertson D, Briffa NK. Effects of a water-based program on women 65 years and over: a randomized controlled trial. Aust J Physiother. 2005; 51: 102–8.
  44. 44. Covill LG, Utley C, Hochstein C. Comparison of Ai Chi and impairment-based aquatic therapy for older adults with balance problems: a clinical study. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2017; 40: 204–13. pmid:27490823
  45. 45. Carnavale BF, Pianna B, Gimenes C, Barrile SR, Alcalde GE, Moratelli JM, et al. Impact of functional aquatic therapy program in older people hypertensive patients. Rev Bras Educ Fis Esporte. 2018; 32: 513–21.
  46. 46. Sá C, Palmeira A. Results of an aquatic exercise program on balance, risk of falls, fear of falling, and quality of life in older adults. J Aquatic Phys Ther. 2019; 27: 2–11.
  47. 47. Oh SJ, Lee SH. Comparing durability of water-and land-based exercise benefits among older adults in South Korea: a randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2021; 34: 745–55. pmid:33896806
  48. 48. Pieniazek M, Manko G, Spieszny M, Bilski J, Kurzydlo W, Ambrozy T, et al. Body balance and physiotherapy in the aquatic enviroment and at a gym. Biomed Res Int. 2021; 9925802.
  49. 49. Ferreira DL, Christofoletti G, Campos DM, Janducci AL, Candanedo MJBL, Ansai JH. Effects of aquatic physical exercise on motor risk factors for falls in older people during the COVID-19 pandemic: a randomized controlled trial. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2022; 45: 378–88. pmid:36175314
  50. 50. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995; 273: 408–12. pmid:7823387
  51. 51. Herman A, Botser IB, Tenenbaum S, Chechick A. Intention-to-treat analysis and accounting for missing data in orthopaedic randomized clinical trials. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009; 91: 2137–43. pmid:19723990
  52. 52. Bohannon RW, Larkin PA, Cook AC, Gear J, Singer J. Decrease in timed balance test scores with aging. Phys Ther. 1984; 64: 1067–70. pmid:6739548
  53. 53. Laughton CA, Slavin M, Katdare K, Nolan L, Bean JF, Kerrigan DC, et al. Aging, muscle activity, and balance control: physiologic changes associated with balance impairment. Gait Posture. 2003; 18; 101–8. pmid:14654213
  54. 54. Aslan UB, Cavlak U, Yagci N, Akdag B. Balance performance, aging and falling: a comparative study based on a Turkish sample. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2008; 46: 283–92. pmid:17580094
  55. 55. Hatzitaki V, Amiridis IG, Arabatzi F. Aging effects on postural responses to self-imposed balance perturbations. Gait Posture. 2005; 22: 250–7. pmid:16214664
  56. 56. Kanekar N, Aruin AS. Aging and balance control in response to external perturbations: role of anticipatory and compensatory postural mechanisms. Age. 2014; 36: 9621. pmid:24532389
  57. 57. Pang BWJ, Wee SL, Lau LK, Jabbar KA, Seah WT, Ng DHM. Sensorimotor performance and reference values for fall risk assessment in community-dwelling adults: The Yishun study. Phys Ther. 2021; 101: 7: pzab035. pmid:33513229
  58. 58. Freiberger E, Sieber CC, Kob R. Mobility in older community-dwelling persons: a narrative review. Front Physiol. 2020; 11: 881. pmid:33041836
  59. 59. Nóbrega-Sousa P, Gobbi LTB, Orcioli-Silva D, Conceição NR, Beretta VS, Vitório R. Aging and associations with gait and executive function. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2020; 34: 915–24.
  60. 60. Osoba MY, Ashwini K, Agrawal SK, Lalwani AK. Balance and gait in the elderly: a contemporary review. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2019; 4: 143–53. pmid:30828632
  61. 61. Quiao M, Feld JA, Franz JR. Aging effects on leg joint variability during walking with balance perturbations. Gait Posture. 2018; 62: 27–33. pmid:29510323
  62. 62. Magnani RM, Bruijn SM, van Dieen JH, Vieira MF. Head orientation and gait stability in young adults, dancers and older adults. Gait Posture. 2020; 80: 68–73. pmid:32492622
  63. 63. Porto JM, Iosimuta NCR, Freire-Junior RC, Braghin RMB, Leitner E, Freitas LG, et al. Risk factors for future falls among community-dwelling older adults without a fall in the previous year: a prospective one-year longitudinal study. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2020; 91: 104161. pmid:32688105
  64. 64. Moscicki EK, Elkins EF, Baum HM, McNamara PM. Hearing loss in the elderly: an epidemiologic study of the Framinghham Heart Study Cohort. Ear Hear. 1985; 6: 184–90.
  65. 65. Ruwer SL, Rossi AG, Simon LF. Balance in the elderly. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2005; 71: 298–303.
  66. 66. Su HC, Huang TW, Young YH, Cheng PW. Aging effect on vestibular evoked myogenic potential. Otol Neurotol. 2004; 25: 977–80. pmid:15547429
  67. 67. Zalewski CK. Aging of the human vestibular system. Semin Hear. 2015; 36: 175–96. pmid:27516717
  68. 68. Cuickshanks KJ, Wiley TL, Tweed TS, Klein BE, Mares-Perlman JA, Nondahl DM. Prevalence of hearing loss in older adults in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin. The epidemiology of hearing loss study. Am J Epidemiol. 1998; 48: 879–86.
  69. 69. Alexander TH, Harris JP. Incidence of sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Otol Neurotol. 2013; 34: 1586–9. pmid:24232060
  70. 70. Huafeng Y, Hongqin W, Wenna Z, Yuan L, Peng X. Clinical characteristics and prognosis of elderly patients with idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Acta Otolaryngol. 2019; 139: 866–9. pmid:31452421
  71. 71. Thomas E, Martines F, Bianco A, Messina G, Giustino V, Zangla , et al. Decreased postural control in people with moderate hearing loss. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018; 97: e0244. pmid:29620637
  72. 72. Ciquinato DSA, Doi MY, Silva RA, Oliveira MR, Gil AWO, Marchiori LLM. Posturographic analysis in the elderly with and without sensorineural hearing loss. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2020; 24: e496–502. pmid:33133269
  73. 73. Bang S, Jeon J, Lee J, Choi J, Song J, Chae S. Association between hearing loss and postural instability in older Korean adults. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020; 146: 530–4. pmid:32324231
  74. 74. Carr S, Pichora-Fuller MK, Li KZH, Campos JL. Effects of age on listening and postural control during realistic multi-tasking conditions. Hum Mov Sci. 2020; 73: 102664. pmid:32768861
  75. 75. Foster JI, Williams KL, Timmer BHB, Brauer SG. The association between hearing impairment and postural stability in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends Hear. 2023; 26: pmid:36524292
  76. 76. Lin TC, Yen M, Liao YC. Hearing loss is a risk factor of disability in older adults: a systematic review. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2019; 85: 103907. pmid:31352184
  77. 77. Sakurai R, Suzuki H, Ogawa S, Takahashi M, Fujiwara Y. Hearing loss and increased gait variability among older adults. Gait Posture. 2021; 87: 54–8. pmid:33892392
  78. 78. Xu D, Newel MD, Francis AL. Fall-related injuries mediate the relationship between self-reported hearing loss and mortality in middle-aged and older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2021; 76: 213–20. pmid:33929532
  79. 79. Szeto B, Zanotto D, Lopez EM, Stafford JA, Nemer JS, Chambers AR, et al. Hearing loss is associated with increase variability in double support period in the elderly. Sensors. 2021; 21: 278.
  80. 80. Potter CN, Silverman LN. Characteristics of vestibular function and static balance skills in deaf children. Phys Ther. 1984; 64; 1071–5. pmid:6739549
  81. 81. An MH, Yi CH, Jeon HS, Park SY. Age-related changes of single-limb standing balance in children with and without deafness. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2009; 73: 1539–44. pmid:19720404
  82. 82. Melo RS, Lemos A, Macky CFST, Raposo MCF, Ferraz KM. Postural control assessment in students with normal hearing and sensorineural hearing loss. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2015; 81: 431–8. pmid:25382425
  83. 83. Melo RS, Lemos A, Raposo MCF, Belian RB, Ferraz KM. Balance performance of children and adolescents with sensorineural hearing loss: Repercussions of hearing loss degrees and etiological factors. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2018; 110: 16–21. pmid:29859579
  84. 84. Soylemez E, Ertugrul S, Dogan E. Assessment of balance skills and falling risk in children with congenital bilateral profound sensorineural hearing loss. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2019; 116: 75–8. pmid:30554713
  85. 85. Melo RS, Lemos A, Raposo MCF, Monteiro MG, Lambertz D, Ferraz KM. Repercussions of the hearing loss degrees and vestibular dysfunction on the static balance of children with sensorineural hearing loss. Phys Ther. 2021. 101: pzab177.
  86. 86. Jafarnezhadgero AA, Majlesi M, Azadian E. Gait ground reaction force characteristics in deaf and hearing children. Gait Posture. 2017; 53: 236–40. pmid:28219845
  87. 87. Melo RS. Gait performance of children and adolescents with sensorineural hearing loss. Gait Posture. 2017; 57: 109–14. pmid:28600974
  88. 88. Lin FR, Niparko JK, Ferrucci L. Hearing loss in the United States. Arch Intern Med. 2011; 171: 1851–2.
  89. 89. Kowalewski V, Patterson R, Hartos J, Bugnariu N. Hearing loss contributes to balance difficulties in both younger and older adults. J Prev Med. 2018; 3: 12. pmid:29951645
  90. 90. Stevens MN, Barbour DL, Gronski MP, Hullar TE. Auditory contributions to maintaining balance. J Vestib Res. 2016; 26: 433–8. pmid:28262648
  91. 91. Vitkovic J, Le C, Lee SL, Clark RA. The contribution of hearing and hearing loss to balance control. Audiol Neurootol. 2016; 21: 195–202. pmid:27251708
  92. 92. Negahban H, Ali MBC, Nassadj G. Effect of hearing aids on static balance function in elderly with hearing loss. Gait Posture. 2017; 58: 126–9. pmid:28772132
  93. 93. Oikawa K, Kobayashi Y, Hiraumi H, Yonemoto K, Sato H. Body balance function of cochlear implant patients with and without sound conditions. Clin Neurophysiol. 2018; 129; 2112–7. pmid:30096566
  94. 94. Seiwerth I, Jonen J, Rahne T, Schwesig R, Lauenroth A, Hullar TE, et al. Influence of hearing on vestibulospinal control in healthy subjects. HNO. 2018: 66: 49–55.
  95. 95. Berge JE, Nordahl SHG, Aarstad HJ, Goplen FK. Hearing as an independent predictor of postural balance in 1075 patients evaluated for dizziness. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019; 161: 478–84. pmid:31013210
  96. 96. Seiwerth I, Jonen J, Rahne T, Lauenroth A, Hullar TE, Plontke SK. et al. Postural regulation and stability with acoustic input in normal hearing subjects. HNO. 2020; 68: 100–5.
  97. 97. Sioud R, Khalifa R, Houel N. Auditory cues behind congenitally blind subjects improve their balance control in bipedal upright posture. Gait Posture. 2019; 70: 175–8. pmid:30878728
  98. 98. Weaver TS, Shayman CS, Hullar TE. The effect of hearing aids and cochlear implants on balance during gait. Otol Neurotol. 2017; 38: 1327–32. pmid:28902805
  99. 99. Campos L, Prochazka A, Anderson M, Kaizer A, Foster C, Hullar T. Consistent hearing aid use is associated with lower fall prevalence and risk in older adults with hearing loss. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2023; pmid:37314100
  100. 100. Suarez H, Alonso R, Arocena S, Ferreira E, Roman CS, Suarez A, et al. Sensorimotor interaction in deaf children. Relationship between gait performance and hearing input during childhood assessed in pre-lingual cochlear implant users. Acta Otolaryngol. 2017; 137: 346–51. pmid:27844494
  101. 101. Maheu M, Behtani L, Nooristani M, Houde MS, Delcenserie A, Leroux T, et al. Vestibular function modulates the benefit of hearing aids in people with hearing loss during static postural control. Ear Hear. 2019; 40: 1418–24. pmid:30998550
  102. 102. Easton RD, Greene AJ, DiZio P, Lackner JR. Auditory cues for orientation and postural control in sighted and congenitally blind people. Exp Brain Res. 1998; 118: 541–50. pmid:9504849
  103. 103. Zhong X, Yost WA. Relationship between postural stability and spatial hearing. J Am Acad Audiol. 2013; 24: 782–8. pmid:24224986
  104. 104. Gandemer L, Parseihian G, Kronland-Martinet R, Bourdin C. Spatial cues provided by sound improve postural stabilization: evidence of a spatial auditory map? Front Neurosci. 2017; 11: 357. pmid:28694770
  105. 105. Karim AM, Rumalla K, King LA, Hullar TE. The effect of spatial auditory landmarks on ambulation. Gait Posture. 2018; 60: 171–4. pmid:29241100
  106. 106. Lubetzky AV. Balance, falls, and hearing loss: Is it time for a paradigm shift? JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020; 146: 535–6. pmid:32324206
  107. 107. Kurtaran H, Acar B, Ocak E, Mirici E. The relationship between senile hearing loss and vestibular activity. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2016; 82: 650–3. pmid:26997575
  108. 108. Gabriel GA, Harris LR, Gnanasegaram JJ, Cushing SL, Gordon KA, Haycock BC, et al. Vestibular perceptual thresholds in older adults with and without age-related hearing loss. Ear Hear. 2021.
  109. 109. Norré ME, Forrez G, Beckers A. Vestibular dysfunction causing instability in aged patients. Acta Otolaryngol. 1987; 104: 50–5. pmid:3499050
  110. 110. Herdman SJ, Blatt P, Schubert MC, Tusa RJ. Falls in patients with vestibular deficits. Am J Otol. 2000; 21: 847–51. pmid:11078074
  111. 111. Liston MB, Bamiou DE, Martin F, Hopper A, Koohi N, Luxon L, et al. Peripheral vestibular dysfunction is prevalent in older adults experiencing multiple non-syncopal falls versus age-matched non-fallers: a pilot study. Age Ageing. 2014; 43: 38–43. pmid:24042003
  112. 112. Ganança FF, Gazzola JM, Aratani MC, Perracini MR, Ganança MM. Circumstances and consequences of falls in elderly people with vestibular disorder. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2006; 72: 388–93. pmid:17119777
  113. 113. Whitney SL, Marchetti GF, Schade AI. The relationship between falls history and computerized dynamic posturography in persons with balance and vestibular disorders. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006; 87: 402–7. pmid:16500176
  114. 114. Gazzola JM, Ganança FF, Aratani MC, Perracini MR, Ganança MM. Clinical evaluation of elderly people with chronic vestibular disorder. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2006; 72: 515–22. pmid:17143431
  115. 115. Ganança FF, Gazzola JM, Ganança CF, Caovilla HH, Ganança MM, Cruz OLM. Elderly falls associated with benign paroxysmal positional vertigo. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2010; 76: 113–20. pmid:20339699
  116. 116. Sousa RF, Gazzola JM, Ganança MM, Paulino CA. Correlation between the body balance and functional capacity from elderly with chronic vestibular disorders. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2011; 77: 791–8. pmid:22183287
  117. 117. Allen D, Ribeiro L, Arshad Q, Seemungal BM. Age-related vestibular loss: current understanding and future research directions. Front Neurol. 2016; 7: 231. pmid:28066316
  118. 118. Dobbels B, Lucieer F, Mertens G, Gilles A, Moyaert J, van de Heyning P, et al. Prospective cohort study on the predictors of fall risk in 119 patients with bilateral vestibulopathy. PLoS One. 2020; 15: e0228768. pmid:32150553
  119. 119. Herssens N, Dobbels B, Moyaert J, van de Ber R, Saeys W, Hallemans A, et al. Paving the way toward distinguishing fallers from non-fallers in bilateral vestibulophaty: a wide pilot observation. Front Neurol. 2021; 12: 611648.
  120. 120. Varriano B, Sulway S, Wetmore C, Dillon W, Misquitta K, Multani N, et al. Prevalence of cognitive and vestibular impairment in seniors experiencing falls. Can J Neurol Sci. 2021; 48: 245–52. pmid:32684199
  121. 121. Enrietto JA, Jacobson KM, Baloh RW. Aging effects on auditory and vestibular responses: a longitudinal study. Am J Otolaryngol. 1999; 20: 371–8. pmid:10609481
  122. 122. Ganança MM. Vestibular disorders in the elderly. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2015; 81: 4–5. pmid:25497851
  123. 123. Noohi F, Kinnaird C, De Dios Y, Kofman I, Wood SJ, Bloomberg JJ, et al. Deactivation of somatosensory and visual córtices during vestibular stimulation is associated with older age and poorer balance. PLoS One. 2019; 14: e0221954.
  124. 124. Herssens N, Verbecque E, McCrum C, Meijer K, van de Berg R, Saeys W, et al. A systematic review on balance performance in patients with bilateral vestibulopathy. Phys Ther. 2020; 100: 1582–94. pmid:32367131
  125. 125. Nimmo ZM, Hwa TP, Naples JG, Shah R, Brant JA, Eliades SJ, et al. Age-related patterns of vestibular dysfunction in dizziness and imbalance–A review of vestibular testing results among 1,116 patients. Otol Neurotol. 2021; 42: 897–905. pmid:34111051
  126. 126. Wagner AR, Akinsola O, Chaudhari AMW, Bigelow KE, Merfeld DM. Measuring vestibular contributions to age-related balance impairment: A review. Front Neurol. 2021; 12: 635305. pmid:33633678
  127. 127. Caixeta GCS, Doná F, Gazzola JM. Cognitive processing and body balance in elderly subjects with vestibular dysfunction. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2012; 78: 87–95. pmid:22499375
  128. 128. Gazzola JM, Perracini MR, Ganança MM, Ganança FF. Functional balance associated factors in the elderly with chronic vestibular disorder. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2006; 72: 683–90. pmid:17221062
  129. 129. Whitney SL, Marchetti GF, Pritcher M, Furman JM. Gaze stabilization and gait performance in vestibular dysfunction. Gait Posture. 2009; 29: 194–8. pmid:18815040
  130. 130. Henriksson M, Henriksson J, Bergenius J. Gait initiation characteristics in elderly patients with unilateral vestibular impairment. Gait Posture. 2011; 33: 661–7. pmid:21450469
  131. 131. Layman AJ, Li C, Carey JP, Agrawal Y. Infuence of age-related loss of otolith function on gait: data from the Baltimore longitudinal study on aging. Otol Neurotol. 2015; 36: 260–6.
  132. 132. Anson E, Pinealt K, Bair W, Studenski S, Agrawal Y. Reduced vestibular function is associated with longer, slower steps in healty adults during normal speed walking. Gait Posture. 2019; 68: 340–5.
  133. 133. Herssens N, Saeys W, Vereeck L, Meijer K, van de Berg R, van Rompaey V, et al. An exploratory investigation on spatiotemporal parameters, margins of stability, and their interaction in bilateral vestibulopathy. Sci Rep. 2021; 11: 6427. pmid:33742071
  134. 134. Melo RS, Lemos A, Paiva GS, Ithamar L, Lima MC, Eickmann SH, et al. Vestibular rehabilitation exercises programs to improve the postural control, balance and gait of children with sensorineural hearing loss: a systematic review. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2019; 127: 109650. pmid:31466025
  135. 135. Melo RS, Tavares-Netto AR, Delgado A, Wiesiolek CC, Ferraz KM, Belian RB. Does the practice of sports or recreational activities improve the balance and gait of children and adolescents with sensorineural hearing loss? a systematic review. Gait Posture. 2020; 77: 144–55. pmid:32036319
  136. 136. Melo RS, Lemos A, Delgado A, Raposo MCF, Ferraz KM, Belian RB. Use of virtual reality-based games to improve balance and gait of children and adolescents with sensorineural hearing loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sensors (Basel). 2023; 23: 6601. pmid:37514897
  137. 137. Shumway-Cook A, Baldwin M, Gruber W. Predicting the probability for falls in community-dwelling older adults. Phys Ther. 1997; 77: 812–9. pmid:9256869
  138. 138. Boulgarides LK, McGinty SM, Willett JA, Barnes CW. Use of clinical and impairment-based tests to predict falls by community-dwelling older adults. Phys Ther. 2003; 83: 328–39. pmid:12665404
  139. 139. Southard V, Dave M, Davis MG, Blanco J, Hofferber A. The multiple tasks test as a predictor of falls in older adults. Gait Posture. 2005; 22: 351–5. pmid:16274918
  140. 140. Muir SW, Berg K, Chesworth B, Speechley M. Use of the Berg Balance Scale for predicting multiple falls in community-dwelling elderly people: a prospective study. Phys Ther. 2008; 88: 449–59. pmid:18218822
  141. 141. Buatois S, Perret-Guillaume C, Gueguen R, Miget P, Vançon G, Perrin P, et al. A simple clinical scale to stratify risk recurrent falls in community-dwelling adults aged 65 years and older. Phys Ther. 2010; 90: 550–60.
  142. 142. Muir SW, Berg K, Chesworth B, Klar N, Speechley M. Balance impairment as a risk fator for falls in community-dwelling older adults who are high functioning: a prospective study. Phys Ther. 2010; 90: 338–47.
  143. 143. Desai A, Goodman V, Kapadia N, Shay BL, Szturm T. Relationship between dynamic balance measures and functional performance in community-dwelling elderly people. Phys Ther. 2010; 90: 748–60. pmid:20223944
  144. 144. Karuka AH, Silva JAMG, Navega MT. Analysis of agreement of assessment tools of body balance in the elderly. Braz J Phys Ther. 2011; 15: 460–6. pmid:22218711
  145. 145. Pardasaney PK, Ni P, Slavin MD, Latham NK, Wagenaar RC, Bean K, et al. Computer-adaptive balance testing improves discrimination between community-dwelling elderly fallers and nonfallers. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014; 95: 1320–7. pmid:24685388
  146. 146. Di Rosa M, Hausdorff JM, Stara V, Rossi L, Glynn L, Casey M, et al. Concurrent validation of an index to estimate fall risk in community dwelling seniors through a wireless sensor insole system: a pilot study. Gait Posture. 2017; 55: 6–11. pmid:28407507
  147. 147. Cleary K, Skornyakov E. Predicting falls in community dwelling older adults using the activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2017; 72: 142–5. pmid:28633057
  148. 148. Steffen TM, Hacker TA, Mollinger L. Age-and-gender-related test performance in community-dweeling elderly people: six-minute walk test, Berg Balance Scale, Timed Up & Go test, and gait speeds. Phys Ther. 2002; 82: 128–37.
  149. 149. Wrisley DM, Kumar NA. Functional gait assessment: concurrent, discriminative, and predictive validity in community-dwelling older adults. Phys Ther. 2010; 90: 761–73. pmid:20360052
  150. 150. Bretan O, Silva-Junior JE, Ribeiro OR, Corrente JE. Risk of falling among elderly persons living in the community: assessment by the Timed up and go test. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2013; 79: 18–21. pmid:23503902
  151. 151. Muhaidat J, Kerr A, Evans JJ, Pilling M, Skelton DA. Validity of simple gait-related dual-task tests in predicting falls in community-dwelling older adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014; 95: 58–64. pmid:24071555
  152. 152. Makizako H, Shimada H, Doi T, Tsutsumimoto K, Nakakubo S, Hotta R, et al. Predictive cutoff values of the five-times sit-to-stand and the Timed “Up & Go” test for disability incidence in older people dwelling in the community. Phys Ther. 2017; 97: 417–24.
  153. 153. Ahman HB, Berglund L, Cedervall Y, Gierdraitis V, McKee KJ, Rosendahl E, et al. Timed “up & go” dual-task tests: age-and-sex-specific reference values and test-retest reliability in cognitively healthy controls. Phys Ther. 2021; 101: pzab179.
  154. 154. Rosa MV, Perracini MR, Ricci NA. Usefulness, assessment and normative data of the Functional Reach Test in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2019; 81: 149–70. pmid:30593986
  155. 155. Aslan UB, Cavlak U, Yagci N, Akdag B. Balance performance, aging and falling: a comparative study based on a Turkish sample. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2008; 46: 283–92. pmid:17580094
  156. 156. Omaña H, Bezaire K, Brady K, Davies J, Louwagie N, Power S, et al. Functional reach test, single-leg stance test, and Tinetti performance-oriented mobility assessment for the prediction of falls in older adults: a systematic review. Phys Ther. 2021; 101: pzab173. pmid:34244801
  157. 157. Bhatt T, Espy D, Yang F, Pai YC. Dynamic gait stability, clinical correlates and prognosis of falls among community-dwelling older adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011; 92: 799–805. pmid:21530728
  158. 158. Shumway-Cook A, Brauer S, Woollacott M. Predicting the probability for falls in community-dwelling older adults using the Timed Up & Go test. Phys Ther. 2000; 80: 896–903.
  159. 159. Barry E, Galvin R, Keogh C, Horgan F, Fahey T. Is the Timed Up and Go test a useful predictor of risk of falls in community dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Geriatr. 2014; 14: 14. pmid:24484314
  160. 160. Hatch J, Gill-Body KM, Portney LG. Determinants of balance confidence in community-dwelling elderly people. Phys Ther. 2003; 83: 1072–9. pmid:14640866
  161. 161. Kang L, Han P, Wang J, Ma Y, Jia L, Fu L, et al. Timed Up and Go test can predict recurrent falls: a longitudinal study of the community-dwelling elderly in China. Clin Interv Aging. 2017; 12: 2009–16. pmid:29238175
  162. 162. Trueblood PR, Hodson-Chennault N, McCubbin A, YoungClarke D. Performance and impairment-based assessments among community dwelling elderly: sensitivity and specificity. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2001; 24: 2–6.
  163. 163. Chiu AYY, Au-Yeung SSY, Lo SK. A comparison of four functional tests in discriminating fallers from non-fallers in older people. Disabil Rehabil. 2003; 25: 45–50. pmid:12554391
  164. 164. Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed “Up & Go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991; 39: 142–8.
  165. 165. Hirase T, Inokuchi S, Matsusaka N, Nakahara K, Okita M. A modified fall risk assessment tool that is specifi to physical function predicts falls in community-dwelling elderly people. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2014; 37: 159–65.
  166. 166. Lusardi MM, Fritz S, Middleton A, Allison L, Wingood M, Phillips E, et al. Determining risk of falls in community dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis using posttest probability. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2017; 40: 1–36. pmid:27537070
  167. 167. Alexandre TS, Meira DM, Rico NC, Mizuta SK. Accuracy of Timed Up and Go test for screening risk of falls among community-dwelling elderly. Braz J Phys Ther. 2012; 16: 381–8. pmid:22858735
  168. 168. Cohen HS, Sangi-Haghpeykar H. Walking speed and vestibular disorders in a path integration task. Gait Posture. 2011; 33: 211–3. pmid:21131202
  169. 169. Whitney SL, Marchetti GF, Schade A, Wrisley DM. The sensitivity and specificity of the Timed “Up & Go” and the Dynamic Gait Index for self-reported falls in persons with vestibular disorders. J Vestib Res. 2004; 14: 397–409.
  170. 170. Donoghue OA, Savva GM, Cronin H, Kenny RA, Horgan NF. Using timed up and go and usual gait speed to predict incident disability in daily activities among community-dwelling adults aged 65 and older. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014; 95: 1954–61. pmid:24977931
  171. 171. Verlinden VJA, van der Geest J, Heeringa J, Hofman A, Ikram MA. Gait shows a sex-specific pattern of associations with daily functioning in a community-dwelling population of older people. Gait Posture. 2015; 41: 119–24. pmid:25278463
  172. 172. Bergland A, Jorgensen L, Emaus N, Strand BH. Mobility as a predictor of all-cause mortality in older men and women:11.8-year follow-up in the Tromso study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017; 17: 22.
  173. 173. Nakakubo S, Doi T, Makizako H, Tsutsumimoto K, Hotta R, Kurita S, et al. Association of walk ratio during normal gait speed and fall in community-dwelling elderly peolpe. Gait Posture. 2018; 66: 151–4.
  174. 174. Kim KJ, Gimmon Y, Millar J, Brewer K, Serrador J, Schubert MC. The instrumented Timed Up and Go test distinguishes turning characteristics in vestibular hypofunction. Phys Ther. 2021; 101: pzab103.
  175. 175. Merlo A, Zemp D, Zanda E, Rocchi S, Meroni F, Tettamanti M, et al. Postural stability and history of falls in cognitively able older adults: the Canton Ticino study. Gait Posture. 2012; 36: 662–66. pmid:22832469
  176. 176. Swanenburg J, de Bruin ED, Uebelhart D, Mulder T. Falls prediction in elderly people: a 1-year prospective study. Gait Posture. 2010; 31: 317–21. pmid:20047833
  177. 177. Quijoux F, Vienne-Jumeau A, Bertin-Hugault F, Zawieja P, Lefevre M, Vidal PP, et al. Center of pressure displacement characteristics differentiate fall risk in older people: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Ageing Res Rev. 2020; 62: 101117. pmid:32565327
  178. 178. Mehdizadeh S, Ooteghem KV, Gulka H, Nabavi H, Faieghi M, Taati B, et al. A systematic review of center of pressure measures to quantify gait changes in older adults. Exp Gerontol. 2021; 143: 111170. pmid:33238173
  179. 179. Silva LE, Valim V, Pessanha APC, Oliveira LM, Myamoto S, Jones A, et al. Hydrotherapy versus conventional land-based exercise for the management of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized clinical trial. Phys Ther. 2008; 88: 12–21. pmid:17986497
  180. 180. Fisken AL, Waters DL, Hing WA, Steele M, Keogh JW. Comparative effects of 2 aqua exercise programs on physical function, balance, and perceived quality of life in older adults with osteoarthritis. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2015; 38: 17–27. pmid:24743752
  181. 181. Volpe D, Giantin MG, Maestri R, Frazzitta G. Comparing the effects of hydrotherapy and land-based therapy on balance in patients with Parkinson’s disease: a randomized controlled pilot study. Clin Rehabil. 2014; 28: 1210–7. pmid:24895382
  182. 182. Nayak P, Mahmood A, Natarajan M, Hombali A, Prashanth CG, Solomon JM. Effect of aquatic therapy on balance and gait in stroke survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2020; 39: 101110. pmid:32379645
  183. 183. Nascimento LR, Flores LC, Menezes KKP, Teixeira-Salmela LF. Water-based exercises for improving walking speed, balance, and strength after stroke: a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized trials. Physiotherapy. 2020: 107; 100–10.
  184. 184. Carroll LM, Morris ME, O’Connor WT, Clifford AM. Is aquatic therapy optimally prescribed for Parkinson’s disease? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Parkinsons Dis. 2020; 10: 59–76. pmid:31815701
  185. 185. Appiah-Kubi KO, Wright WG. Vestibular training promotes adaptation of multisensory integration in postural control. Gait Posture. 2019; 73: 215–20. pmid:31376748
  186. 186. Ricci NA, Aratani MC, Doná F, Macedo C, Caovilla HH, Ganança FF. A systematic review about the effects of the vestibular rehabilitation in middle-age and older adults. Braz J Phys Ther. 2010; 14: 361–71. pmid:21180862
  187. 187. Porciuncula F, Johnson CC, Glickman LB. The effect of vestibular rehabilitation on adults with bilateral vestibular hypofunction: a systematic review. J Vestib Res. 2012; 22: 283–98. pmid:23302709
  188. 188. Brodovsky JR, Vnenchak MJ. Vestibular rehabilitation for unilateral peripheral vestibular dysfunction. Phys Ther. 2013; 93: 293–8. pmid:23329556
  189. 189. McDonnell MN, Hillier SL. Vestibular rehabilitation for unilateral peripheral vestibular rehabilitation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; 13: 1.
  190. 190. Whitney SL, Alghadir AH, Anwer S. Recent evidence about the effectiveness of vestibular rehabilitation. Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2016; 18: 13. pmid:26920418
  191. 191. Hall CD, Herdman SJ, Whitney SL, Cass SP, Clendaniel RA, Fife TD, et al. Vestibular rehabilitation for peripheral vestibular hypofunction: an evidence-based clinical practice guideline. J Neurol Phys Ther. 2016; 40: 124–55.
  192. 192. Ribeiro KMOBF, Freitas RVM, Ferreira LMBM, Deshpande N, Guerra RO. Effects of balance vestibular rehabilitation therapy in elderly with Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo: a randomized controlled trial. Disabil Rehabil. 2017; 39: 1198–1206. pmid:27340939
  193. 193. Rossi-Izquierdo M, Gayoso-Diz P, Santos-Pérez S, Sel-Rio-Valeiras M, Faraldo-Garcia A, Vaamonde-Sánchez-Andrade , et al. Vestibular rehabilitation in elderly patients with postural instability: reducing the number of falls-a randomized clinical trial. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2018; 30: 1353–61. pmid:30008159
  194. 194. Ribeiro KF, Oliveira BS, Freitas RV, Ferreira LM, Deshpande N, Guerra RO. Effectiveness of otolith repositioning maneuvers and vestibular rehabilitation exercises in elderly people with Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo: a systematic review. Braz J Otorhonolaryngol. 2018; 84: 109–18.
  195. 195. Aratani MC, Ricci NA, Caovilla HH, Ganança FF. Benefits of vestibular rehabilitation on patient-reported outcomes in older adults with vestibular disorders: a randomized clinical trial. Braz J Phys Ther. 2020; 24: 550–9. pmid:31952916
  196. 196. Regauer V, Seckler E, Muller M, Bauer P. Physical therapy interventions for older people with vertigo, dizziness and balance disorders addressing mobility and participation: a systematic review. BMC Geriatr. 2020; 20; 494. pmid:33228601
  197. 197. To PLS, Singh DKA, Whitney SL. Effects of customized vestibular rehabilitation plus canalith repositioning maneuver on gait and balance in adults with Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo: a randomized controlled trial. J Vestib Res. 2022. 32: 79–86. pmid:34151874
  198. 198. Brown KE, Whitney SL, Wrisley DM, Furman JM. Physical therapy outcomes for persons with bilateral vestibular loss. Laryngoscope. 2001; 111: 1812–7. pmid:11801950
  199. 199. Choi W, Han C, Lee S. The effects of head rotation exercise on postural balance, muscle strength, and gait in older women. Women Health. 2020; 60: 426–39. pmid:31587622
  200. 200. Silsupadol P, Siu PC, Shumway-Cook A, Woollacott MH. Training of balance under single-and-dual-task conditions in older adults with balance impairment. Phys Ther. 2006; 86: 269–81. pmid:16445340
  201. 201. Silsupadol P, Lugade V, Shumway-Cook A, van Donkelaar P, Chou LS, Mayr U, et al. Training-related changes in dual-task walking performance of elderly persons with balance impairment: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Gait Posture. 2009; 29: 634–9. pmid:19201610
  202. 202. Nagai K, Yamada M, Tanaka B, Uemura K, Mori S, Aoyama T, et al. Effects of balance training on muscle coativation during postural control in older adults: a randomized controlled trial. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2012; 67: 882–9.
  203. 203. Shumway-Cook A, Gruber W, Baldwin M, Liao S. The effect of multidimensional exercises on balance, mobility and fall risk in community-dwelling older adults. Phys Ther. 1997; 77: 46–57. pmid:8996463
  204. 204. Lopopolo RB, Greco M, Sullivan D, Craik RL, Mangione KK. Effect of therapeutic exercise on gait speed in community-dwelling elderly people: a meta-analysis. Phys Ther. 2006; 86: 520–40. pmid:16579669
  205. 205. Lim JY, Jang SN, Park WB, Oh MK, Kang EK, Paik NJ. Association between exercise and fear of falling in community-dwelling elderly Koreans: results of a cross-sectional public opinion survey. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011; 92: 954–9. pmid:21621672
  206. 206. Woollacott M, Shumway-Cook A. Attention and the control of posture and gait: a review of an emerging área of research. Gait Posture. 2002; 16: 1–14.
  207. 207. Pellecchia GL. Postural sway increases with attentional demands of concurrent cognitive task. Gait Posture. 2003; 18: 29–34. pmid:12855298
  208. 208. Laurence BD, Michel L. The fall in older adults: physical and cognitive problems. Curr Aging Sci. 2017; 10: 185–200. pmid:28874111
  209. 209. Legters K. Fear of falling. Phys Ther. 2002; 82: 264–72. pmid:11869155
  210. 210. Herman T, Inbar-Borovsky N, Brozgol M, Gilardi N, Hausdorff JM. The dynamic gait indez in healty older adults: The role of stair climbing, fear of falling and gender. Gait Posture. 2009; 29: 237–41.
  211. 211. Uemura K, Yamada M, Nagai K, Tanaka B, Mori S, Ichihashi N. Fear of falling is associated with prolonged anticipatory postural adjustment during gait initiation under dual-task conditions in older adults. Gait Posture. 2012; 35: 282–6. pmid:22024142
  212. 212. de Groot MH, van der Jagt-Willems HC, van Campen JPCM, Lems WF, Neijnen JH, Lamoth CJC. A flexed posture in elderly patients is associated with impairments in postural control during walking. Gait Posture. 2014; 39: 767–72. pmid:24268470
  213. 213. Toebes MJP, Hoozemans MJM, Furrer R, Dekker J, van Dieen JH. Associations between measures of gait stability, leg strength and fear of falling. Gait Posture. 2015; 41: 76–80. pmid:25242294
  214. 214. Almeida CWL, Castro CHM, Pedreira PG, Heymann RE, Szejnfeld VL. Percentage height of center of mass is associated with the risk of falls among elderly women: A case-conrol study. Gait Posture. 2011; 34: 208–12.
  215. 215. Kirkwood RN, Trede RG, Moreira BS, Kirkwood AS, Pereira LSM. Decrease gastricnemius temporal muscle activation during gait in elderly women with history of recurrent falls. Gait Posture. 2011; 34: 60–4.
  216. 216. Lupo J, Barnett-Cowan. Impaired perceived timing of falls in the elderly. Gait Posture. 2018; 59: 40–5.
  217. 217. Hayashi S, Misu Y, Sakamoto T, Yamamoto T. Cross-sectional analysis of fall-related factors with a focus on fall prevention self-efficacy and self-cognition of physical performance among community-dwelling older adults. Geriatrics (Basel). 2023; 8:13. pmid:36648918
  218. 218. Dos Santos EPR, Ohara DG, Patrizzi LJ, Walsh IAP, Silva CFR, Silva-Neto JR, et al. Investigating factors associated with fear of falling in community-dwelling older adults through structural equation modeling analysis. J Clin Med. 2023; 12: 545. pmid:36675475
  219. 219. Schlick C, Schniepp R, Loidl V, Wuehr M, Hesselbarth K, Jahn K. Falls and fear of falling in vertigo and balance disorders: a controlled cross-sectional study. J Vestib Res. 2016; 25: 241–51. pmid:26890425
  220. 220. Vanspauwen R. Dizziness and (fear of) falling in the elderly: a few facts. J Int Adv Otol. 2018; 14: 1–2. pmid:29764772
  221. 221. Whitney SL, Sparto PJ, Furman JM. Vestibular rehabilitation and factors that can affect outcome. Semin Neurol. 2020; 40: 165–72. pmid:31887754
  222. 222. Coto J, Alvarez CL, Cejas I, Colbert BM, Levin BE, Huppert J, et al. Peripheral vestibular system: age-related vestibular loss and associated deficits. J Otol. 2021; 16: 258–65. pmid:34548873