Objective impairments of gait and balance in adults living with HIV-1 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Table 5 Studies assessing balance outcomes

		Trenkwalder 1992 [46]	Arendt 1994 [47]	Beckley 1998 [50]	Bauer 2005 [7]	Dellepiane 2005 [48]	Simmonds 2005 [49]	Richert 2011 [8]	Bauer 2011 [22]	Sullivan 2011 [21]	Cohen 2012 [45]	Richert 2014 [9]	Erlandson 2014 [12]	Total studies assessing outcome
Balance outcome	Mean sway path (m/min)	X												1
	Sway velocity (m/s)		X											1
	Sway area (μVxs)		X			X								2^a
	AP					X								1
	LAT					X								1
	AP/LAT quotient		X			X								2^b
	Romberg ratio of sway velocity; RW		X			X								2^a
	Romberg area of sway; RA					X								1
	Way					X								1
	SOT sway strategy score								X					1
	SOT EQ				X									1
	SOT number of falls; time before fall				X									1
	FBOS; LOS				X				X					2^c
	Latencies of postural reflexes (ms)		X	X		X								3^a
	Duration of postural reflexes					X								1
	Amplitude of postural reflexes					X								1
	Area of single EMG potential					X								1
	Normalized amplitude of ML-response			X										1
	Standardized LL Z-scores			X										1
	Romberg ECF (sec)										X			1
	Tandem stance (sec)									X				1
	Single leg stance time (sec)							X	X	X		X		4^d
	Berg balance score							X						1
	TUG time (sec)							X				X		2^e
	5STS time (sec)							X	X			X		3^f
	5STS pace (rises/s)												X	1
	360° turn time								X					1
	Walk heel-to-toe (number of steps)									X				1
	Forward reach distance (cm)						X	X						2^g

Abbreviations: 5STS 5-times sit-to-stand test, AP average velocity in an anterior-posterior direction, cm centimeters, ECF eyes-closed-on-foam, EMG electromyography, EQ equilibrium quotient, FBOS functional base of support, LAT average velocity in a medial-lateral direction, LL long loop, LOS limits of stability, m meters, min minute, ML medium loop, ms millisecond, RA Romberg area of sway, RW Romberg ratio of sway velocity, sec second, SOT sensory organization test, TUG timed-up-and-go test
^aMeta-analysis performed
^bMeta-analysis not done as Arendt 1994 does not report SD values
^cMeta-analysis not done as Bauer 2005 does not report values for control group
^dMeta-analysis not done due to heterogeneity in methodologies: Richert 2011 uses established normative values as comparison; Sullivan 2011 uses max time of 60 s, Richert 2014 has no comparison values
^eMeta-analysis not done as Richert 2014 has no comparison group
^fMeta-analysis not done as Richert 2011 & 2014 has no comparison groups
^gMeta-analysis not done as Richert 2011 uses established normative values as comparison

ISSN: 1471-2474