↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Effects of dual tasks and dual-task training on postural stability: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 tweeters
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
125 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
423 Mendeley
Title
Effects of dual tasks and dual-task training on postural stability: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, March 2017
DOI 10.2147/cia.s125201
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shashank Ghai, Ishan Ghai, Alfred O Effenberg

Abstract

The use of dual-task training paradigm to enhance postural stability in patients with balance impairments is an emerging area of interest. The differential effects of dual tasks and dual-task training on postural stability still remain unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to analyze the effects of dual task and training application on static and dynamic postural stability among various population groups. Systematic identification of published literature was performed adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, from inception until June 2016, on the online databases Scopus, PEDro, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and SportDiscus. Experimental studies analyzing the effects of dual task and dual-task training on postural stability were extracted, critically appraised using PEDro scale, and then summarized according to modified PEDro level of evidence. Of 1,284 records, 42 studies involving 1,480 participants met the review's inclusion criteria. Of the studies evaluating the effects of dual-task training on postural stability, 87.5% of the studies reported significant enhancements, whereas 30% of the studies evaluating acute effects of dual tasks on posture reported significant enhancements, 50% reported significant decrements, and 20% reported no effects. Meta-analysis of the pooled studies revealed moderate but significant enhancements of dual-task training in elderly participants (95% CI: 1.16-2.10) and in patients suffering from chronic stroke (-0.22 to 0.86). The adverse effects of complexity of dual tasks on postural stability were also revealed among patients with multiple sclerosis (-0.74 to 0.05). The review also discusses the significance of verbalization in a dual-task setting for increasing cognitive-motor interference. Clinical implications are discussed with respect to practical applications in rehabilitation settings.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 423 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 423 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 75 18%
Student > Bachelor 58 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 53 13%
Researcher 36 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 6%
Other 75 18%
Unknown 101 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 89 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 55 13%
Sports and Recreations 44 10%
Neuroscience 40 9%
Psychology 21 5%
Other 43 10%
Unknown 131 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 October 2022.
All research outputs
#3,713,101
of 22,441,655 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#401
of 1,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,895
of 279,774 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#10
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,441,655 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,813 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,774 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.