OBJECTIVE: To conduct an umbrella review to determine whether there is an association between CVDs and the prevalence of AP in adults.
METHODS: The protocol of the review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020185753). The literature search was conducted using the following electronic databases: Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science Scopus, PubMed and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from inception to May, 2020, with no language restrictions. Systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis that evaluated the association between CVDs and AP were included. Other types of studies, including narrative reviews, were excluded. Two reviewers independently performed a literature search, data extraction and quality assessment of included studies. Any disagreements or doubts were resolved by a third reviewer. The quality of the reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool (A measurement tool to assess systematic reviews), with 16 items. A final categorization of the systematic reviews classified each as of 'high', 'moderate', 'low' or 'critically low' quality.
RESULTS: Four systematic reviews were included in the current review. Three reviews were graded by AMSTAR 2 as 'moderate' quality, whereas one review was graded as 'critically low' quality.
DISCUSSION: Only one systematic review included a meta-analysis. Substantial heterogeneity amongst the primary studies included within each systematic review was notable in preventing a pooled analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: From the limited 'moderate' to 'critically low' quality evidence available, the current umbrella review concluded that a weak association exists between CVDs and AP. In the future, well-designed, longitudinal clinical studies with long-term follow-up are required.
Aim: To investigate the concurrent validity and reliability of the WBB for balance assessment in healthy young adults.
Methods: Thirty-two young adults participated in this study. Their ability to balance was tested while standing on a WBB and a laboratory-grade force platform, under three conditions: feet together with eyes open, feet together with eyes closed and semi-tandem standing with eyes open. They had 10 min resting period between tests. The agreement between the WBB and the laboratory-grade force platform was investigated, and the reliability of the WBB was determined.
Results: A poor agreement between the WBB and the laboratory-grade force platform was found for all standing conditions [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.03 to 0.07]. A moderate to high reliability was found for the WBB for balance assessment in healthy young adults (ICC = 0.66 to 0.76).
Conclusion: The WBB was found to be a reliable tool for static balance assessment in healthy young adults. However, it had poor validity compared to the laboratory-grade force platform.
Please provide feedback to Administrator (firstname.lastname@example.org)