Skip to main content

Table 7 Summary of objective balance outcomes and results

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

Study ID Results Method of measurement Outcomes assessed
Trenkwalder 1992 [46] b,a 4 conditions on force plate: Bilat stance EO + stable; Bilat stance EC + stable; Bilat stance EO + foam; Bilat stance EC + foam. Mean sway path (m/min): EO & EC + foamb(all PLHIV except WR I-II)/EC + stable or foamb(all PLHIV)/All other conditions a
Arendt 1994 [47] b,a 2 conditions on force plate: Bilateral stance EO; Bilateral stance EC. Sway velocity (m/s)b / AP/LAT quotient a
Beckley 1998 [50] b,a Leg reflexes elicited in participants while standing upright on movable force plate - surface EMG recordings obtained from left tibialis anterior and medial gastrocnemius Onset latencies (SL, ML and LL) (ms) / Normalized amplitude of MLa/LL-amplitude scaling (predictable a; unpredictable b)
Bauer 2005 [7] b,a 1) SOT, 3 conditions: EO, EC, inaccurate visual input
2) Forward/backward lean tests
3) (Single-leg stance test)
1) SOT, for each condition: EQ. (EOa, ECb, inaccuratea)/Number of fallsa/Time before a fall (seconds)a
2) FBOS (Lean amplitude/ft length)b
3) (Single Leg Stance time (s) - results not presented)
Simmonds 2005 [49] a Loaded forward reach
Unloaded forward reach
Distance reached (cm)a
Richert 2011 [8] a,c 1) BBS
2) TUG test
3) FR test
4) SLS, EC
5) 5STS
1) Berg scorea
2) TUG time (sec)a
3) Reach distance (cm)a
4) SLS time (sec)c
5) 5STS time (sec)c
Dellepiane 2005 [48] b, a 1) Static posturography: Romberg’s position on force plate; EO & EC
2) Dynamic posturography: EO & EC; leg reflexes elicited via sudden tilts of moveable force plate, EMG recorded
1) Static:
Way (EO & EC, SXb), Area, AP (ASX in ECb, SX in EOb & ECb), LAT (SX in ECb), AP/LATa, RW, RAb
2) Dynamic (SL, ML and LL):
Latency (SL: EO & EC, all HIV groupsb) (ML: EO, SX, both legsb; EO, ASX, left leg b; EC, all groupsa) (LL: EC, SXb; EC, ASXa)/Duration (SL: EO, all PLHIV a; EC, SX, left legb) (ML: EO, all PLHIVa; EC, all PLHIV, bilatb) (LL, EC, all PLHIVb) /Amplitudea/Area of single EMGa
Bauer 2011 [22] b, a 1) SOT, 3 conditions: EO, EC, inaccurate visual input
2) Forward/backward lean tests
3) SLS test
4) 360-degree turn test
5) 5STS test
1) SOT: Dependent variables calculated for each condition were:
EQ (ECb, inaccurate inputb)
Sway strategy score (ECb)
2) LOS (lean amplitude/ft length)b
3) SLST time (seconds) (only obese PLHIV, non-preferred legb)
4) 360 deg. turn time (seconds) (only obese PLHIVb)
5) 5STS time (seconds)a
Sullivan 2011 [21] b, a Walk-a-Line Battery. Conditions: Stand Heel-to-Toe; Walk Heel-to-Toe; and SLS. 1) Stand Heel-to-Toe time (seconds)a
2) SLS time (seconds) (non-preferred legb)
3) Walk-Heel-to-Toe - number of steps out of 10 (ECb)
Cohen 2012 [45] c Romberg tests on stable and on foam, 4 conditions: EO + stable, EC + stable, EO + foam, EC + foam. Romberg time, EC + foam (seconds)c
Erlandson 2012a [10] c Tandem stand and 5STS as part of SPPB 5STS time (part of SPPB score)c/Tandem stance time (part of SPPB score)c
Erlandson 2012b [18] c Tandem stand and 5STS as part of SPPB 5STS time (part of SPPB score)c/Tandem stance time (part of SPPB score)c
Richert 2014 [9] c 1) 5STS test
2) TUG test
3) SLS test
1) 5STS time (seconds)c
2) TUG time (seconds)c
3) SLS time (seconds)c
Erlandson 2014 [12] c 5STS 5STS pace (rises/s)c
  1. Outcomes included in meta-analyses are not included in this table
  2. Abbreviations: 5STS 5-times-sit-to-stand, AP Average velocity in anterior-posterior direction, ASX asymptomatic; BBS Berg Balance Scale, Bilat bilateral, COP center of pressure, deg. degree, EC eyes closed, EMG electromyography, EO eyes open, EQ equilibrium quotient, FBOS functional base of support, FR functional reach, LAT average velocity in medial-lateral direction, LL long loop, LOS limits of stability, ML medium loop, PLHIV people living with HIV, RW Romberg index reported to way = ratio of way with EO & EC, RA Romberg index reported to area = ratio of area with EO & EC, SL short loop, SLS single leg stance, SOT sensory organization test, SX symptomatic, TUG timed-up-and-go
  3. ano significant difference between PLHIV and controls
  4. bPLHIV significantly impaired compared to controls or normative reference values
  5. cNo comparison provided/impairment quantified by reporting proportion of PLHIV with deficits