Table 7 Summary of objective balance outcomes and results

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 + foam^b(all PLHIV except WR I-II)/EC + stable or foam^b(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 ML^a/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. (EO^a, EC^b, inaccurate^a)/Number of falls^a/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 score^a

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, SX^b), Area, AP (ASX in EC^b, SX in EO^b & EC^b), LAT (SX in EC^b), AP/LAT^a, RW, RA^b

2) Dynamic (SL, ML and LL):

Latency (SL: EO & EC, all HIV groups^b) (ML: EO, SX, both legs^b; EO, ASX, left leg ^b; EC, all groups^a) (LL: EC, SX^b; EC, ASX^a)/Duration (SL: EO, all PLHIV ^a; EC, SX, left leg^b) (ML: EO, all PLHIV^a; EC, all PLHIV, bilat^b) (LL, EC, all PLHIV^b) /Amplitude^a/Area of single EMG^a

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 (EC^b, inaccurate input^b)

Sway strategy score (EC^b)

2) LOS (lean amplitude/ft length)^b

3) SLST time (seconds) (only obese PLHIV, non-preferred leg^b)

4) 360 deg. turn time (seconds) (only obese PLHIV^b)

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 leg^b)

3) Walk-Heel-to-Toe - number of steps out of 10 (EC^b)

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