Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Jan 7;16(1):e0244990. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244990

Age-related differences in stair descent balance control: Are women more prone to falls than men?

Zuzana Kováčiková 1,*,#, Javad Sarvestan 1,#, Erika Zemková 2,#
Editor: Fabio A Barbieri3
PMCID: PMC7790224  PMID: 33411803

Abstract

Stair descent is one of the most common forms of daily locomotion and concurrently one of the most challenging and hazardous daily activities performed by older adults. Thus, sufficient attention should be devoted to this locomotion and to the factors that affect it. This study investigates gender and age-related differences in balance control during and after stair descent on a foam mat. Forty-seven older adults (70% women) and 38 young adults (58% women) performed a descent from one step onto a foam mat. Anteroposterior (AP) and mediolateral (ML) centre of pressure velocity (CoP) and standard deviation of the CoP sway were investigated during stair descent and restabilization. A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed the main effects of age for the first 5 s of restabilization. Older women exhibited significantly higher values of CoP sway and velocity in both directions compared to the younger individuals (CoP SDAP5, 55%; CoP SDML5, 30%; CoP VAP5, 106%; CoP VML5, 75%). Men achieved significantly higher values of CoP sway and velocity only in the AP direction compared to their younger counterparts (CoP SDAP5, 50% and CoP VAP5, 79%). These findings suggest that with advancing age, men are at higher risk of forward falls, whereas women are at higher risk of forward and sideways falls.

Introduction

The ability to descend stair once or repeatedly is an essential daily locomotion and concurrently indicator of functional mobility and independence in older adults [13]. Compared to other frequent daily activities such as walking or reaching the objects, a stair descent imposes higher neuromuscular and sensorimotor demand for controlling the centre of mass during movement [1,4]. With age-related alterations to the neuromuscular and sensorimotor systems, this transition movement can become progressively more demanding to the extent that stair descent becomes a challenging and hazardous task for many older adults, even for those in apparently good state of health and physical fitness [5,6]. An impaired ability to respond quickly to balance disturbances during stair descent, predisposes older adults to a higher incidence of falls [6].

Stair descent falls in older adults are three times more dangerous than stair ascents, and ten times more dangerous than level ground walking falls in terms of injury severity, occurrence of 'post-fall syndrome', and mortality [69]. Falls in older people are typically multifactorial events with risk factors that include mainly female sex, decreased muscle strength, impaired balance control, diseases and others [9,10]. As indicated above, women are more prone to falls than men [11,12]. The most common explanation is that they are generally weaker than men across all age groups [13]. Although women undergo lower relative muscle strength losses over time, its critical level is achieved earlier than in men. This is translated into relatively faster degradation of proprioception, and, consequently of balance control [1315]. However, findings about balance control degradation in relation to age and gender are contradictory and applicable for static conditions only [1620]. In addition, findings about static balance control are not directly transferable to dynamic conditions [21,22].

It should be also noted that physical activity and overall physical fitness of older adults could play significant role in stair descent balance control and related falls. It has been observed that older men are more physically active than women, when assessed based on the physical activity guidelines [23,24]. However, they engage more in aerobic activities [25,26]. On the other hand, women participate more in balance and strength exercise programs than men [2730]. Even though many studies have been conducted on stair descent balance control in older adults [4,3134], none of them examined men and women separately.

As mentioned above, falls are the result of interactions between many factors, including environmental ones [35]. Stepping down is not always conducted on a firm and stable surface in a real-life situation. The stepping surfaces that people encounter on a daily basis can vary, even during the day. In relation to balance control, unstable or compliant surfaces have received much less attention than hard surfaces, despite the fact that they further challenge the already disturbed somatosensory feedback and balance control in older adults [3638]. In such circumstances, it is highly possible that even a small balance disturbance during a stair descent could results in falling.

This study was designed to investigate gender-and age-related differences in stair descent balance control and restabilization. We hypothesized worse stair descent balance control and restabilization with advancing age in both women and men. The novelty aspects of this study are as follows: (1) stair descent balance control is evaluated during and immediately after stair descent; (2) a foam mat is used as a stepping surface; (3) age-related changes in balance control are evaluated in men and women separately.

Materials and methods

Participants

Older adults were recruited through community service providers, the University of the Third Age at Palacký University Olomouc, personalized invitation letters, and through newspaper advertisement. Physical education students were recruited at Faculty of physical culture. Forty-seven older adults (14 men/33 women) and 38 physical education students (16 men/22 women) without orthopedic, neurological, cardiovascular disorders and/or total joint replacements met eligibility criteria and were enrolled in the study. Their basic descriptive characteristics are reported in Table 1. Physical activity of our participants was screened via interview; this, however, was not an inclusion criterion. Both groups were also screened for falls history. The study was prepared within the project entitled Postural stability and its relationship to the muscle strength of selected muscle groups no. 18-16107Y. Project was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Physical Culture, Palacký University Olomouc No.24/2017. The committee evaluated the project and found no contradictions with the principles, procedures and international guidelines for medical research involving human subjects. Procedures were in accordance with ethical standards for human experimentation the 1964 Helsinki Declaration (and its later amendments). All participants were informed regarding the study protocol and signed an informed consent form.

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of young and older participants.

Women Men
Baseline characteristics Young (n = 22) Older (n = 33) Young (n = 16) Older (n = 14)
Age (years) 21.0 ± 1.5 68.2 ± 4.9 21.9 ± 1.6 71.2 ± 7.7
Weight (kg) 61.6 ± 8.0 67.9 ± 8.3 73.9 ± 8.3 89.0 ± 13.9
Height (cm) 167.2 ± 5.4 163.0 ± 7.2 178.4 ± 9.0 179.5 ± 6.3
BMI (kg/m2) 22.0 ± 2.6 25.6 ± 3.0 23.3 ± 2.4 27.6 ± 3.4
Number of falls (n)ǂ 0 5 0 3

Note: BMI = body mass index. ǂNumber of falls in the last 3 months before enrolment–single cases in each group.

Testing protocol

All participants were evaluated for functional lower limb dominance before balance testing. Limb dominance was determined based on a ball kick test, step up test, and balance recovery test [39]. The limb that was used to kick the ball, descend the stair, or recuperate balance after nudging was considered as the functionally dominant limb.

Participants were barefoot. They started from an upright position on the top of the one-step wooden stair (height = 20.8 cm, width = 46.0 cm, and depth = 38.4 cm) that was placed in front of two force plates positioned side by side (AMTI OR6-5, Advanced Mechanical Technology, Inc., Watertown, MA, USA; sampling frequency 200 Hz) and covered by a foam pad (Airex Balance Pad, Airex AG, Sins, Switzerland; height = 6 cm, width = 50 cm, and depth = 41 cm). A schematic of set-up is shown in Fig 1. Participants were instructed to step down at their preferred speed. Stair descent was initiated with the dominant limb, followed by the nondominant limb onto the same level (step-by-step strategy) with subsequent restabilization. The participants had at disposal practice trial and then the three valid trials were recorded. Based on the initial screening, the participants did not use handrails during stair locomotion in their daily lives; therefore, stair descent was performed without using handrails. However, two assistants stood at each side of the participant and provided security in case of balance loss. The presence of any pain, discomfort and/or clinical signs of musculoskeletal disorder during testing was reason for test interruption. Those who wore glasses were tested wearing them.

Fig 1. Schematic of set‐up for force platform measurements.

Fig 1

Data processing

Stair descent

It was defined by the ground contact of the dominant (T0) and nondominant limb (T1). The ground contact of the limbs with the foam mat was defined as the instant when the vertical component of the ground reaction force (vGRF) measured by the force plate exceeded 10 N (Fig 2). A vGRF value of 10 N is often used as a threshold for contact in gait related studies [40,41]. Because the force plates used for the measurement generated a low level of background noise, 10 N was a reasonable threshold value to avoid missing relevant data and was sufficiently high such that noise was not misinterpreted as actual contact. Anteroposterior (AP) and mediolateral (ML) centre of pressure velocity (CoP V) and standard deviation of the CoP sway (CoP SD) were evaluated (CoP VAP, CoP VML and CoP SDAP, CoP SDML). In addition, time between the ground contact of the dominant (T0) and nondominant limb (T1) was investigated and considered as stair descent time.

Fig 2. Definition of stair descent and restabilization based on the vertical ground reaction force.

Fig 2

Restabilization

It was defined by the ground contact of the nondominant limb with the foam mat (T1) when the vertical component of the ground reaction force (vGRF) measured by the force plate exceeded 10 N (Fig 2). This phase was characterized by the 30 s of quiet standing, however, only the first 5 s were evaluated. Previous studies suggested that the first 5 s after postural perturbations are crucial when assessing balance control in older adults [42,43]. Mean CoP V and CoP SD in both directions were evaluated (CoP VAP5, CoP VML5 and CoP SDAP5, CoP SDML5).

Data analysis

The CoP coordinates were filtered using a fourth-order low-pass Butterworth filter with a cutoff frequency of 10 Hz. Subsequently, the mean CoP V and CoP SD parameters in both directions were calculated. Data analysis was performed using MATLAB software (v. 2018a, MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA, USA).

Statistical analysis

The calculation of the sample size was conducted with α = 0.05 (5% chance of type I error) and 1–β = 0.80 (power 80%), and was based on the study of Kim [33], which compared the CoP sway and velocity during a stair descent in young and older adults. A minimum sample size of 13 participants per group was determined to be required in an attempt to minimize the publication bias. Consequently, the sample size employed in our study was regarded as sufficient for detecting significant differences in balance control between groups. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to test the data distribution. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied in order to assess the effects of gender and age (2 gender groups [males and females] × 2 age groups [young and older]) on the dependent variables. If significant main effect and/or interaction was found, Tukeyˈs post-hoc test was performed. Statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for Windows, version 25 (SPSS, IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). The significance level was set at p < 0.05.

Results

The results of two-way ANOVA indicated the significant main effects of age for the first 5 s of restabilization only. The same analysis revealed no significant effects of gender, and interactive effects between age and gender for any dependent variable (Table 2).

Table 2. Stair descent balance control and restabilization in women and men, by age groups.

Women Men 2-way ANOVA (p)
Stair descent Young (n = 22) Older (n = 33) Young (n = 16) Older (n = 14) A G G x A
Descent time (s) 0.69 (0.608–0.860) 0.74 (0.607–0.883) 0.71 (0.64–0.83) 0.70 (0.66–0.79) 0.759 0.531 0.310
CoP VAP (mm.s-1) 291.4 (218.0–481.2) 366.2 (278.5–792.1) 332.6 (224.7–779.7) 393.0 (325.9–637.9) 0.338 0.629 0.162
CoP VML (mm.s-1) 251.3 (138.8–524.9) 352.9 (241.2–793.3) 349.1 (164.4–765.1) 316.0 (225.5–553.1) 0.252 0.713 0.382
CoP SDAP (mm) 30.3 (22.9–35.4) 31.0 (24.9–39.1) 29.9 (25.7–43.6) 33.4 (25.4–37.9) 0.587 0.990 0.248
CoP SDML (mm) 10.0 (7.4–23.2) 18.8 (11.5–33.9) 17.7 (9.6–31.5) 17.9 (9.2–25.5) 0.610 0.900 0.409
Restabilization
CoP VAP 5 (mm.s-1) 30.1 (28.1–35.4) 71.5 (54.2–80.2)*** 34.6 (27.8–40.2) 61.5 (43.5–67.4)** <0.001 0.299 0.221
CoP VML 5 (mm.s-1) 43.6 (37.9–50.2) 70.9 (61.0–90.6)*** 52.0 (49.0–60.3) 67.6 (51.2–86.9) <0.001 0.594 0.061
CoP SDAP 5 (mm) 9.9 (9.0–11.1) 16.3 (13.4–19.0)*** 10.5 (8.9–12.3) 15.5 (11.6–18.2)** <0.001 0.734 0.722
CoP SDML 5 (mm) 16.5 (14.1–20.3) 22.9 (17.8–26.1)** 18.2 (16.6–21.1) 23.3 (18.1–24.4) 0.003 0.782 0.399

Note: CoP VAP = mean CoP velocity in anteroposterior direction; CoP VML = mean CoP velocity in mediolateral direction; CoP SDAP = the standard deviation of the anteroposterior CoP sway; CoP SDML = the standard deviation of the mediolateral CoP sway; CoP VAP 5 = mean CoP velocity in the anteroposterior direction during the first 5 s of restabilization; CoP VML 5 = mean CoP velocity in the mediolateral direction during the first 5 s of restabilization; CoP SDAP 5 = the standard deviation of the anteroposterior CoP sway during the first 5 s of restabilization; CoP SDML 5 = the standard deviation of the mediolateral CoP sway during the first 5 s of restabilization.; G = gender effect; A = age effect; G × A = gender × age interaction. *Significantly different than younger counterparts (p < 0.05).

**Significantly different than younger counterparts (p < 0.01).

***Significantly different than younger counterparts (p < 0.001). Data are presented as median and interquartile range.

Older women achieved significantly higher values of CoP V and CoP SD in both directions (CoP VAP5, 106%, p<0.001; CoP VML5, 75%, p<0.001; CoP SDAP5, 55%, p<0.001; CoP SDML5, 30%, p = 0.009) and were considered as less stable compared to young women. Older men exhibited higher values of CoP V and CoP SD direction than their younger counterparts, however, in the AP direction only (CoP VAP5, 79%, p = 0.004; CoP SDAP5, 50%, p = 0.003). Results are summarized in Table 2.

Discussion

This study investigated gender-and age-related differences in stair descent balance control and restabilization. Only the first 5 s of restabilization differentiated significantly between young and older participants. Women presented higher values of CoP sway and velocity in both directions with age, while men achieved higher values of CoP sway and velocity only in the AP direction compared to their younger counterparts.

We found two studies that looked at the effect of aging on balance recovery after taking a step [44,45]. In both studies, lesser stability after step execution and slower balance recovery to a stable state were observed in older adults compared to younger participants. However, we cannot compare our results with those obtained in the above-mentioned studies since step-over-step stair descent on hard surface was evaluated and mixed gender groups were compared.

The CoP velocity and sway measures have been previously used to evaluate age-related changes in balance control [33,46,47] with higher values attributed to worse balance [46,48]. The CoP velocity relies primarily on greater sensory integration from the visual and vestibular systems, whereas sway is controlled principally by the somatosensory system [46,49]. The larger values of CoP sway, along with higher CoP velocity observed in our study could indicate deficits in the sensory and somatosensory system resulted in decreased steadiness after stair descent [46,50,51].

In our study, we used a foam mat as a stepping surface. Stepping on a compliant surface increases stress applied to the sensory system. The sensorimotor loading and integration between the systems are critical in determining body positioning in space [52]. Deficits in the integration of the sensory systems could increase the displacement of the center of mass outside of the base of support and induce fall [52]. Stepping down is performed not only during stair descent, but also in many other everyday activities such as stepping down from a curb, alighting from public transport, or walking downhill. To perform these activities in a safe manner can be threatened by various ground surface changes. A compliant surface such as carpet, grass, snow, or a sand reduces ability of kinesthetic system to accurately detect body orientation with respect to the ground surface. In addition, it induces a mechanical perturbation which is caused by the compression of an extremely compliant viscoelastic surface during stepping [53]. In such circumstances, stepping down activity can much easily lead to falls with less or more serious health consequences.

Multifactorial origin of falls is well-known. The higher the number of risk factors, the more likely it is that a fall will occur, with about an 8% falls rate with no risk factors and then a 15–20% increased risk for each additional risk factor [9]. Despite the fact that our older men and women were physically active, combination of factors such as advancing age, decreased balance control in the first 5 s of restabilization, compliant ground surface, gender and previous history of falls could increase the risk of falling.

Compared to younger counterparts, older women were less stable in both the AP and ML directions, whereas older men were less stable only in the AP direction. It is generally known that older adults are less efficient at using ankle strategy, which is key to AP balance control [45]. Reduced AP balance control predisposes older adults to a higher incidence of stair descent falls, which generally occur in the anterior direction [1,54,55]. In contrast, relatively less attention is typically paid to ML balance control in relation to stair descent locomotion despite the fact that the ML sway is a predictive variable for sideways falls [33]. Sideways falls increase the risk of hip fracture six-fold as compared to forward or backward falls [56], and are associated with increasing disability, morbidity, and mortality [5760]. Most falls in older adults occur when the leading limb moves onto the lower level, and the trailing limb begins to bend at the knee and hip [61]. In other words, they occur during the stair descent. It was therefore quite unexpected to find significant age-related differences in balance control in the restabilization, but not during the stair descent. Accordingly, any limitation in balance control in restabilization may negatively affect the subsequent step, and more generally, the continuous step-by-step stair descent.

Balance control deterioration may be slowed down by appropriate interventions, which should be aimed at improving the safety of stair descent locomotion in older adults. Even though the older adults in our study could be considered as physically active, their physical activity was predominantly aerobic (e.g. walking, Nordic walking, hiking, swimming, cycling) and therefore, had no or minimal impact on balance control. A training load of aerobic character (persistent effort of low intensity) is not a sufficient stimulus for the development of balance abilities. Training specificity is widely established as an integral aspect affecting training responses. Therefore, even our relatively healthy and physically active older adults may be at risk of falls. According to the World Health Organization, older adults should perform physical activity to enhance balance and prevent falls three or more days per week [62]. To achieve the greatest improvements, training interventions should emphasize simulating not only movement patterns, but also other important factors, such as environmental conditions.

Older adults were less effective in controlling balance disturbances in the first 5 s of restabilization than their younger counterparts. Older women exhibited significantly worse balance control in the AP and ML directions than their younger counterparts, whereas men were significantly less stable only in the AP direction with advancing age. This could indicate that men are at a higher risk of forward falls with advancing age, whereas women are at higher risk of falls in both directions. Evaluation of CoP velocity and sway after stair descent on a compliant surface provides a simple way of measuring age-related changes in balance control under realistic conditions and could prove useful when screening for balance disorders, not only in those prone to falls. Some limitations of this study have to be noted. The different number of young and older participants and the overall small number of men included can be considered as the first limitation. Approximately the same number of women and men were recruited for each age category, but only a small number of men met the strict inclusion criteria. Moreover, women were more willing to participate in this study. A second limitation of this study was that the single step was evaluated only. The next limitation can be considered the absence of fallers in the group of young adults.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. Juraj Pecho for his help with Figures.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The research reported in this manuscript has been supported by the Scientific Grant of the Czech Science Foundation [GA CR, No. 18-16107Y]. The funding source had no involvement in study design; in the collection; analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.

References

  • 1.Bosse I, Oberländer KD, Savelberg HH, Meijer K, Brüggemann GP, Karamanidis K. Dynamic stability control in younger and older adults during stair descent. Hum Mov Sci. 2012; 31(6): 1560–1570. 10.1016/j.humov.2012.05.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Novak AC, Brouwer B. Sagittal and frontal lower limb joint moments during stair ascent and descent in young and older adults. Gait Posture. 2011; 33(1):54–60. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2010.09.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Novak AC, Li Q, Yang S, Brouwer B. Mechanical energy transfers across lower limb segments during stair ascent and descent in young and healthy older adults. Gait Posture. 2011; 34(3): 384–90. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2011.06.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Lee HJ, Chou LS. Balance control during stair negotiation in older adults. J Biomech. 2007; 40(11): 2530–2536. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2006.11.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Orr R. Contribution of muscle weakness to postural instability in the elderly. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2010; 46(2):183–220. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Startzell JK, Owens DA, Mulfinger LM, Cavanagh PR. Stair negotiation in older people: a review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000; 48(5): 567–580. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.tb05006.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Cohen HH, Templer J, Archea J. An analysis of occupational stair accident patterns. J. Safety. Res. 1985; 16(4): 171–181. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Svanström L. Falls on stairs: an epidemiological accident study. Scand J Soc Med. 1974; 2(3):113–120. 10.1177/140349487400200302 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Tinetti ME, Speechley M, Ginter SF. Risk factors for falls among elderly persons living in the community. N Engl J Med. 1988; 319(26):1701–1707. 10.1056/NEJM198812293192604 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Rubenstein LZ, Josephson KR, Robbins AS. Falls in the nursing home. Ann Intern Med. 1994; 121(6): 442–451. 10.7326/0003-4819-121-6-199409150-00009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Gale CR, Cooper C, Aihie Sayer A. Prevalence and risk factors for falls in older men and women: the English longitudinal study of ageing. Age Ageing. 2016; 45(6): 789–794. 10.1093/ageing/afw129 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Stevens JA, Sogolow ED. Gender differences for non-fatal unintentional fall related injuries among older adults. Inj Prev. 2005; 11(2):115–119. 10.1136/ip.2004.005835 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Akima H, Kanyo Y, Enomoto Y, Ishizu M, Okada M, Oishi Y et al. Muscle function in 164 men and women aged 20–84 yr. Med Sci Sport Exer. 2001; 33(2): 220–226. 10.1097/00005768-200102000-00008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Campbell AJ, Borrie MJ, Spears GF. Risk factors for falls in a community-based prospective study of people 70 years and older. J Gerontol. 1989; 44(4): M112–M117. 10.1093/geronj/44.4.m112 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Frontera WR, Hughes VA, Lutz KJ, Evans WJ. A cross-sectional study of muscle strength and mass in 45-to 78-yr-old men and women. J. Appl. Physiol. 1991; 71(2): 644–650. 10.1152/jappl.1991.71.2.644 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Colledge NR, Cantley P, Peaston I, Brash H, Lewis S, Wilson JA. Ageing and balance: the measurement of spontaneous sway by posturography. Gerontology. 1994; 40(5): 273–278. 10.1159/000213596 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Hageman PA, Leibowitz JM, Blanke D. Age and gender effects on postural control measures. Arch Phys Med Rehab. 1995; 76(10): 961–965. 10.1016/s0003-9993(95)80075-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hamel KA, Cavanagh PR. Stair performance in people aged 75 and older. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004; 52(4): 563–567. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52162.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Overstall PW, Exton-Smith AN, Imms FJ, Johnson AL. Falls in the elderly related to postural imbalance. Br Med J. 1977; 1(6056): 261–264. 10.1136/bmj.1.6056.261 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Wolfson L, Whipple R, Derby CA, Amerman P, Nashner L. Gender differences in the balance of healthy elderly as demonstrated by dynamic posturography. J Gerontol. 1994; 49(4): M160–M167. 10.1093/geronj/49.4.m160 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Owings TM, Pavol MJ, Foley KT, Grabiner MD. Measures of postural stability are not predictors of recovery from large postural disturbances in healthy older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000; 48(1): 42–50. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.tb03027.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Mackey DC, Robinovitch SN. Postural steadiness during quiet stance does not associate with ability to recover balance in older women. Clin Biomech. 2005; 20(8): 776–783. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hallal PC, Andersen LB, Bull FC, Guthold R, Haskell W, Ekelund U, Lancet Physical Activity Series Working Group. Global physical activity levels: surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Lancet. 2012; 380(9838): 247–257. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60646-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Sun F, Norman IJ, While AE. Physical activity in older people: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2013; 13(1): 449 10.1186/1471-2458-13-449 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ross CE, Hayes D. Exercise and psychologic well-being in the community. Am J Epidemiol. 1988; 127(4): 762–771. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114857 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Verbrugge LM. The twain meet: empirical explanations of sex differences in health and mortality. J Health Soc Behav. 1989; 30(3): 282–304. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Cho YH, Mohamed O, White B, Singh-Carlson S, Krishnan V. The effects of a multicomponent intervention program on clinical outcomes associated with falls in healthy older adults. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2018; 30(9):1101–1110. 10.1007/s40520-018-0895-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Gillespie LD, Robertson MC, Gillespie WJ, Sherrington C, Gates S, Clemson LM, et al. Interventions for preventing falls in older people living in the community. Cochrane Database Syst. 2012; (9). 10.1002/14651858.CD007146.pub3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hawley-Hague H, Roden A, Abbott J. The evaluation of a strength and balance exercise program for falls prevention in community primary care. Physiother Theor Pr. 2017; 33(8): 611–621. 10.1080/09593985.2017.1328721 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Josephson MD, Williams JG. Functional-strengthening: A pilot study on balance control improvement in community-dwelling older adults. Montenegrin J. Sports. Sci. Med. 2017; 6(2): 75–78. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Buckley JG, Heasley K, Scally A, Elliot DB. The effects of blurring vision on medio-lateral balance during stepping up or down to a new level in the elderly. Gait Posture. 2005; 22(2): 146–153. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2004.08.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Buckley JG, Cooper G, Maganaris CN, Reeves ND. Is stair descent in the elderly associated with periods of high centre of mass downward accelerations?. Exp Gerontol. 2013; 48(2): 283–289. 10.1016/j.exger.2012.11.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kim HD. A comparison of the center of pressure during stair descent in young and healthy elderly adults. J Phys Ther Sci. 2009; 21(2):129–134. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Reeves ND, Spanjaard M, Mohagheghi AA, Baltzopoulos V, Maganaris CN. Influence of light handrail use on the biomechanics of stair negotiation in old age. Gait Posture. 2008; 28(2): 327–336. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2008.01.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Stevens JA, Olson S. Reducing falls and resulting hip fractures among older women. Home care provider. 2000; 5(4):134–141. 10.1067/mhc.2000.109232 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Allum JHJ, Zamani F, Adkin AL, Ernst A. Differences between trunk sway characteristics on a foam support surface and on the Equitest® ankle-sway-referenced support surface. Gait Posture. 2002; 16(3): 264–270. 10.1016/s0966-6362(02)00011-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Marigold DS, Patla AE. Adapting locomotion to different surface compliances: neuromuscular responses and changes in movement dynamics. J Neurophysiol. 2005; 94(3):1733–1750. 10.1152/jn.00019.2005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Moghadam M, Ashayeri H, Salavati M, Sarafzadeh J, Taghipoor KD, Saeedi A, et al. Reliability of center of pressure measures of postural stability in healthy older adults: effects of postural task difficulty and cognitive load. Gait Posture. 2011; 33(4): 651–655. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2011.02.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Hoffman M, Payne VG. The effects of proprioceptive ankle disk training on healthy subjects. J Orthop Sport Phys. 1995; 21(2): 90–93. 10.2519/jospt.1995.21.2.90 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.O’Connor CM, Thorpe SK, O’Malley MJ, Vaughan CL. Automatic detection of gait events using kinematic data. Gait Posture. 2007; 25(3): 469–474. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2006.05.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Ghoussayni S, Stevens C, Durham S, Ewins D. Assessment and validation of a simple automated method for the detection of gait events and intervals. Gait Posture. 2004; 20(3): 266–272. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2003.10.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Jonsson E, Seiger Å, Hirschfeld H. One-leg stance in healthy young and elderly adults: a measure of postural steadiness?. Clin Biomech. 2004; 19(7): 688–694. 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2004.04.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Tsang WWN, Chan VWL, Wong HH, Yip TWC, Lu X. The effect of performing a dual-task on postural control and selective attention of older adults when stepping backward. J Phys Ther Sci. 2016; 28(10): 2806–2811. 10.1589/jpts.28.2806 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Kilby MC, Slobounov SM, Newell KM. Aging and the recovery of postural stability from taking a step. Gait Posture. 2014; 40(4): 701–706. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2014.08.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Porter S, Nantel J. Older adults prioritize postural stability in the anterior–posterior direction to regain balance following volitional lateral step. Gait Posture. 2015; 41(2): 666–669. 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2015.01.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Prieto TE, Myklebust JB, Hoffmann RG, Lovett EG, Myklebust BM. Measures of postural steadiness: Differences between healthy young and elderly adults. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1996; 43(9): 956–966. 10.1109/10.532130 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Da Silva RA, Bilodeau M, Parreira RB, Teixeira DC, Amorim CF. Age-related differences in time-limit performance and force platform-based balance measures during one-leg stance. J. Electromyogr. Kines. 2013; 23(3): 634–639. 10.1016/j.jelekin.2013.01.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Pajala S, Era P, Koskenvuo M, Kaprio J, Tormakangas T, Rantanen T. Force platform balance measures as predictors of indoor and outdoor falls in community-dwelling women aged 63–76 years. J Gerontol A Biol Sci. 2008; 63(2): 171–178. 10.1093/gerona/63.2.171 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Masani K, Popovic MR, Nakazawa K, Kouzaki M, Nozaki D. Importance of body sway velocity information in controlling ankle extensor activities during quiet stance. J Neurophysiol. 2003; 90(6): 3774–3782. 10.1152/jn.00730.2002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Ruhe A, Fejer R, Walker B. Center of pressure excursion as a measure of balance performance in patients with non-specific low back pain compared to healthy controls: a systematic review of the literature. Eur Spine J. 2011; 20(3): 358–368. 10.1007/s00586-010-1543-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Watt AA, Clark C, Williams JM. Differences in sit-to-stand, standing sway and stairs between community-dwelling fallers and non-fallers: a review of the literature. Phys Ther Rev. 2018; 23(4–5): 273–290. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Peterka RJ. Sensorimotor integration in human postural control. J Neurophysiol. 2002; 88(3):1097–1118. 10.1152/jn.2002.88.3.1097 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.MacLellan MJ, Patla AE. Adaptations of walking pattern on a compliant surface to regulate dynamic stability. Exp Brain Res. 2006; 173(3): 521–530. 10.1007/s00221-006-0399-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Studenski S, Duncan PW, Chandler J, Samsa G, Prescott B, Hogue C, et al. Predicting falls: the role of mobility and nonphysical factors. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1994; 42(3): 297–302. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1994.tb01755.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Williamson JD, Fried LP. Characterization of older adults who attribute functional decrements to “old age”. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1996; 44(12):1429–1434. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1996.tb04066.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Robinovitch SN, Inkster L, Maurer J, Warnick B. Strategies for avoiding hip impact during sideways falls. J Bone Miner Res. 2003; 18(7):1267–1273. 10.1359/jbmr.2003.18.7.1267 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Campbell AJ, Reinken J, Allan BC, Martinez GS. Falls in old age: a study of frequency and related clinical factors. Age Ageing. 1981; 10: 264–270. 10.1093/ageing/10.4.264 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Dowswell T, Cryer C, Towner EM. Accidental Falls: Fatalities and Injuries; an Examination of the Data Sources and Review of the Literature on Preventive Strategies. University of Newcastle upon Tyne; 1999. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Ory MG, Schechtman KB, Miller JP, Hadley EC, Fiatarone MA, Province MA et al. Frailty and injuries in later life: the FICSIT trials. J Am Geriatr. 1993; 41(3): 283–296. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1993.tb06707.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Tinetti ME. Factors associated with serious injury during falls by ambulatory nursing home residents. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1987; 35(7): 644–648. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1987.tb04341.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Templer JA. 1992. The staircase: Vol. 2, studies of hazards, falls, and safer design MIT Press, London. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.WHO, 2002. WHO Media centre: Physical inactivity a leading cause of disease and disability, warns, WHO: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/release23/en. Accessed November 10, 2019. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Fabio A Barbieri

6 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-27933

Age-related differences in stair descent balance control: are women more prone to falls than men?

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kovacikova,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Both reviewers suggested major revisions for your manuscript. I agree with them, especially related to methodological issues (e.g., description of stair descent) and statistical analysis. Please address adequately the question about statistical analysis. I think that the reviewer is right. If you disagree, you need a good explanation for the analysis employed.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 21 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Fabio A. Barbieri, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: General comments

This study aimed to investigate age-related differences in balance control during and after stair descent in older men and older women.

The subject addressed is relevant and has practical applicability. However, some aspects need to be improved and clarified.

Specific comments

Abstract

1 – The objective presented in the abstract does not fully match with the title of the study, because it was not informed in the objective that men and women would be separately analyzed.

2 – P.2, lines 34-35: this sentence is too vague. Please, specify what were the age-related differences.

3 – It is not clear what the percentages showed are representing (e.g. mean, range, CoP sway, CoP velocity, AP direction, ML direction…). Please, clarify in the text.

4 – I suggest including a keyword related to postural control.

Introduction

5 – It was stated in the aim of the study that gender- and age-related differences would be investigated. However, men and women were not compared. It is necessary to rewrite the aim accordingly.

Materials and Methods

6 – In Table 1, it is not clear what is the number of falls presented. Are they the mean of falls of all older women and men included in the study? Were all the older individuals fallers?

7 – Do you have information about the type of falls they had suffered (e.g. sideways, forward, backward)? If yes, this could be an interesting information to discuss the results found.

8 – I am not sure whether the force plates were positioned side by side or one in front of each other. I suggest including a figure to show this setting.

9 – What was the size of each force plate? Was there a foam pad for each force plate? Did the foam mat cover exactly the total area of each force plate? How was possible to know when the participant stepped down with the entire foot onto each force plate? Please, include this information in the Methods section.

10 – It was informed that “only the first 5 s were evaluated”. When did this time start? Did you evaluate 5 s for each force plate and each limb?

11 – How was the stair descent time determined? Please, include this information in the text.

12 – Please, make it clearer in the Methods how were the phases named and determined. The terms “stair descent phase”, “restabilization phase”, “stair descent”, “during stair descent”, and “after stair descent” were utilized, but it would be more clear if only one term would be utilized for each phase, and whether a clear description on how each phase was determined was included.

Results

13 – It is not clear whether the stair descent phase data are from the dominant limb and the restabilization phase are from the non-dominant limb, or whether one of these phases are from both limbs. Please, clarify.

Discussion

14 – In the Introduction, the authors cited that men and women use to practice different types of exercise. What were the exercises and the weekly number of sessions practiced by the participants of the study? Could the differences found for men and women be related to the exercises they have been regularly practicing? I suggest including a paragraph about this in the discussion.

Reviewer #2: General comments:

This study examined the age-related difference in balance control during and after a stair descent on a compliant surface. The strength of this paper was to test the sex-difference of the balance control after stair descent on a compliant surface in two age groups. I will make some recommendations for major and minor revisions to improve the clarity of the manuscript as follows.

1. In the title, “Age-related differences” let leaders expect to see the test of the age difference, and the hypothesis also includes the effect of advancing age in both women and men. However, in the statistical analysis, one-way ANOVA was used. To interpret the data as a function of both age and sex, two-way ANOVA would be appropriate. For example, you may have an interaction of sex by age in any of your dependent variables. Otherwise, if the purpose is only to look at the differences between age groups within a gender, then the title and/or hypothesis may need to be updated for clarity.

2. “One-step wooden staircase” sounds more like a curb instead of a staircase. Did the subject stand on the wooden step and step down? Is there any rationale that it is described as stair descent instead of stepping down a curb?

3. For clarification, please describe clearly the stair descent phase and the restabilization phase. Is the stair descent phase from first foot contact on the ground to the next foot contact on the ground? Is the restabilization phase includes 5 seconds from the moment when both force plates over 10N?

4. Line 235: What do other important factors mean?

Minor revisions

1. A wording for “older adults” supposed to be consistent for all of the manuscript, but the authors used ‘older adults’ mixed with ‘elderly adults’ [line 49, 76, 186].

2. Table1: How did you get the number of falls in older adults? Was it a retrospective question? Why does no data for young adults?

3. Table2 has a different format for each cell. It should be described as standard deviation or range consistently.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 7;16(1):e0244990. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244990.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


11 Nov 2020

We would like to thank Editor and the Reviewers for sparing the time to write us so many detailed and useful comments and recommendations. All changes in the manuscript are highlighted.

Below you will find our point-by-point statements to the reviewers’ comments. Changes are highlighted in yellow for reviewer #1 and in green for reviewer #2. Other associated changes are highlighted in purple.

Yours sincerely

The authors

Reviewer #1

Specific comments

Abstract

1 – The objective presented in the abstract does not fully match with the title of the study, because it was not informed in the objective that men and women would be separately analyzed.

Statement: We thank Reviewer for his/her comment. Based on the recommendation (Reviewer 2), a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied in order to assess the effects of gender and age on the dependent variables. Men and women were analyzed together, and results were changed according to the new findings. Lines 29-30.

2 – P.2, lines 34-35: this sentence is too vague. Please, specify what were the age-related differences.

Statement: Done. Mentioned sentence was rewritten (lines 33-35).

3 – It is not clear what the percentages showed are representing (e.g. mean, range, CoP sway, CoP velocity, AP direction, ML direction…). Please, clarify in the text.

Statement: Done. Required information was added. Lines 36 and 38.

4 – I suggest including a keyword related to postural control.

Statement: Done. Balance control and centre of pressure were added. Line 41.

Introduction

5 – It was stated in the aim of the study that gender- and age-related differences would be investigated. However, men and women were not compared. It is necessary to rewrite the aim accordingly.

Statement: We thank Reviewer for his/her comment. Data were analyzed using by 2-way ANOVA (2 gender groups [males and females] × 2 age groups [young and older]) instead of 1-way ANOVA and results were rewritten according to the new findings. We believe that our aim is ok now.

Material and Methods

6 – In Table 1, it is not clear what is the number of falls presented. Are they the mean of falls of all older women and men included in the study? Were all the older individuals fallers?

Statement: Young participants and older adults were screened for falls history. They were asked the following questions: "Did you fall in the last three months?" and "What was the reason of your fall/falls?". Number of falls (n) is presented in Table 1 – single cases in each group. Not all older adults were fallers. Lines 96 and 105.

7 – Do you have information about the type of falls they had suffered (e.g. sideways, forward, backward)? If yes, this could be an interesting information to discuss the results found.

Statement: This is an interesting point. The medical and clinical status of our participants was checked by anamnestic questionnaire and interview. However, the number of falls in the last three months before study enrollment and their reasons were evaluated only. The falling direction was not evaluated.

8 – I am not sure whether the force plates were positioned side by side or one in front of each other. I suggest including a figure to show this setting.

Statement: Force plates were positioned side by side and covered by one foam pad. This information was added to the Testing protocol (line 114). We absolutely agree with Reviewer that adding a photo could make it easier for readers to understand. Figure 1 was added.

9 – What was the size of each force plate? Was there a foam pad for each force plate? Did the foam mat cover exactly the total area of each force plate? How was possible to know when the participant stepped down with the entire foot onto each force plate? Please, include this information in the Methods section.

Statement: We thank Reviewer for his/ her valuable suggestions. The size of one force plate was 50.8 x 46.4 cm. One foam mat was used. No, total area of each force plate was not covered (based on our pilot measurements, it was not necessary). Participants were informed about the set-up for force platform measurements and the data collection. They were also instructed about the foot placement. These instructions did not adversely affect the movement pattern and we were able to obtain data under the most realistic conditions.

We have implemented the Reviewer’s very useful recommendation into Methods section. Figure 1 was added for better understanding (lines 125-126).

10 – It was informed that “only the first 5 s were evaluated”. When did this time start? Did you evaluate 5 s for each force plate and each limb?

Statement: The onset of the restabilization was defined as the contact of the nondominant limb (T1) with the ground. Time started when nondominant/trailing limb touched the foam mat and the vertical component of the ground reaction force (vGRF) measured by the force plate exceeded 10 N.Both force plates were synchronized. Plates were calibrated before each trial and with foam mat on the top. Restabilization was characterized by bipedal stance with each foot placed on one force plate. The data for each limb/plate were then processed and averaged. Generally, we obtained one output from both plates. Amti force plates are very sensitive and are able to detect data correctly even if the ground contact was performed very close to the force plate edge. Foot placement was checked by examiner and assistants.

Data processing section was rewritten, and Figure 2 was added.

11 – How was the stair descent time determined? Please, include this information in the text.

Statement: Done. This information was added (lines 139-141).

12 – Please, make it clearer in the Methods how were the phases named and determined. The terms “stair descent phase”, “restabilization phase”, “stair descent”, “during stair descent”, and “after stair descent” were utilized, but it would be more clear if only one term would be utilized for each phase, and whether a clear description on how each phase was determined was included.

Statement: We thank Reviewer for his/her valuable recommendation. Whole manuscript was checked for mentioned phrases. We decided to use only STAIR DESCENT and RESTABILIZATION and to minimize other phrases as much as possible. Both phases are defined (see Methods section – Data processing).

Results

13 – It is not clear whether the stair descent phase data are from the dominant limb and the restabilization phase are from the non-dominant limb, or whether one of these phases are from both limbs. Please, clarify.

Statement: Dear Reviewer, results were rewritten according to the new findings (statistical analysis). Methods section was rewritten, and Figures 1 and 2 were added for better understanding. Very easy explanation is that the stair descent was defined by the contact of dominant and nondominant limb (single limb support phase) and restabilization was characterized by bipedal stance. The aim was to obtain data under realistic conditions (no special instructions, no trunk corrections, no descent pattern corrections…).

Discussion

14 – In the Introduction, the authors cited that men and women use to practice different types of exercise. What were the exercises and the weekly number of sessions practiced by the participants of the study? Could the differences found for men and women be related to the exercises they have been regularly practicing? I suggest including a paragraph about this in the discussion.

Statement: Young participants were PE students participating on aerobic (40%), intermittent (34%) and balance (26%) activities. All older adults were physically active, participating in organized physical activities and sports for at least two 60 min sessions per week, and walking for more than 2 h per day. Their physical activity has not been analyzed in detail. Their physical activity was aerobic (walking, cycling, Nordic walking, swimming etc.). Based on our experience, older adults are willing to participate on balance interventions. However, these programs are conducted predominantly as a part of scientific studies. Within our scientific project, older adults underwent 8-weeks balance interventions with higher number of women than men in each group. On the other hand, men more often continued to exercise in the home environment than women.

We thank Reviewer for his/her useful recommendation. Paragraph dealing with physical activity was added (lines 244 – 251).

Reviewer#2:

General comments:

1. In the title, “Age-related differences” let leaders expect to see the test of the age difference, and the hypothesis also includes the effect of advancing age in both women and men. However, in the statistical analysis, one-way ANOVA was used. To interpret the data as a function of both age and sex, two-way ANOVA would be appropriate. For example, you may have an interaction of sex by age in any of your dependent variables. Otherwise, if the purpose is only to look at the differences between age groups within a gender, then the title and/or hypothesis may need to be updated for clarity.

Statement: We thank Reviewer for this valuable comment. Data were analyzed using by two-way ANOVA instead of one-way ANOVA (Kruskal-Wallis). Results were rewritten according to the new findings.

2. “One-step wooden staircase” sounds more like a curb instead of a staircase. Did the subject stand on the wooden step and step down? Is there any rationale that it is described as stair descent instead of stepping down a curb?

Statement: We thank Reviewer for his/her comment. If we understand it correctly, discrepancy is in using word stair. Both, stair descent and also stepping down a curb are using when single step is evaluated. We preferred phrase stair descent also because rehabilitation companies offer wooden stair instead of wooden curb. Staircase was replaced by stair.

Lebleu, J., Mahaudens, P., Pitance, L., Roclat, A., Briffaut, J. B., Detrembleur, C., & Hidalgo, B. (2018). Effects of ankle dorsiflexion limitation on lower limb kinematic patterns during a forward step-down test: A reliability and comparative study. Journal of back and musculoskeletal rehabilitation, 31(6), 1085-1096.

Li, Z. Y., & Chou, C. (2014). The effect of cane length and step height on muscle strength and body balance of elderly people in a stairway environment. Journal of physiological anthropology, 33(1), 36.

Gao, B., Cordova, M. L., & Zheng, N. N. (2012). Three-dimensional joint kinematics of ACL-deficient and ACL-reconstructed knees during stair ascent and descent. Human movement science, 31(1), 222-235.

3. For clarification, please describe clearly the stair descent phase and the restabilization phase. Is the stair descent phase from first foot contact on the ground to the next foot contact on the ground? Is the restabilization phase includes 5 seconds from the moment when both force plates over 10N?

Statement: Yes, the stair descent is defined by the ground contact of the dominant/leading (T0) and nondominant/trailing limb (T1). The ground contact of the limbs with the foam mat was defined as the instant when the vertical component of the ground reaction force (vGRF) measured by the force plate exceeded 10 N. The onset of the restabilization was defined as the ground contact of the nondominant limb (T1) when the vertical component of the ground reaction force (vGRF) measured by the force plate exceeded 10 N. Figure 1 was added for better understanding.

Data processing section was rewritten.

4. Line 235: What do other important factors mean?

Statement: We thank Reviewer for his/her suggestion. We added " such as environmental conditions" at the end of the mentioned sentence (line 254).

Minor revisions

1. A wording for “older adults” supposed to be consistent for all of the manuscript, but the authors used ‘older adults’ mixed with ‘elderly adults’ [line 49, 76, 186].

Statement: We thank Reviewer for his/her valuable comment. Phrase ‘elderly adults’ was replaced by ‘older adults’ through the whole manuscript as suggested.

2. Table1: How did you get the number of falls in older adults? Was it a retrospective question? Why does no data for young adults?

Statement: The number of falls was obtained from participants through interview. Yes, it was a retrospective question (Q1: Did you fall in the last three months? Q2: What was the reason of your fall/falls?). Physical activity was the only reason for falls in older adults – single fall incidents. Young individuals have not reported falls in the last three months before enrollment.

Table 1 - We used zero (0) instead of symbol ˈ-ˈ for better understanding.

3. Table2 has a different format for each cell. It should be described as standard deviation or range consistently.

Statement: We change it as suggested. Data in Table 2 are presented as median and interquartile range.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Fabio A Barbieri

15 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-27933R1

Age-related differences in stair descent balance control: are women more prone to falls than men?

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kovacikova,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Dear authors,

One reviewer accepted the manuscript and another one suggested minor revisions. I already have read the paper. It is very interesting, but I have little suggestions to improve it before acceptance.

1) Please improve the rationale of the abstract and remove it. For example, why are more readily seen differences between age and gender under unstable conditions?

2) Please double check the writing on line 64 and 222.

3) Please change hypothesize to hypothesized. - line 82

4)  I have two possible limitations of the study. Please addressed them. 

I) there are fallers in the older adults sample, but not in young. This should be mentioned.

II) the number of young and older participants (especially for women) is many different. This should be mentioned too.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 29 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Fabio A. Barbieri, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear Authors,

Thank you for addressing the comments on the manuscript. In this new version, the clarity of the manuscript significantly improved. After reviewing the revised version of the manuscript, I have only a few minor comments.

P.2, l.35-36 – I suggest starting the sentence including the word “Older women…” and change “with age” by “compared to the younger individuals” to make the sentence clearer for the readers.

P.7 Stair descent subsection – It seems that both stair descent and restabilization phases are being described in this subsection. However, there is another subsection (Restabilization) for the restabilization phase description. Please, review.

P.12, l.256-258 – I suggest including in this sentence the information that these data are about age comparisons, because in the way it is written, it seems that the authors are talking about gender differences.

Reviewer #2: The authors addressed all of the comments including major and minor points.

No coroners about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Jan 7;16(1):e0244990. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244990.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


17 Dec 2020

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

we would like to thank for your detailed and useful comments and recommendations. All changes in the manuscript are highlighted.

Below you will find our point-by-point statements to your comments. Changes are highlighted in green for Editor and in purple for Reviewer.

Yours sincerely

The authors

EDITOR

1) Please improve the rationale of the abstract and remove it. For example, why are more readily seen differences between age and gender under unstable conditions?

Done. We changed rationale as recommended.

2) Please double check the writing on line 64 and 222.

Sentences were rewritten.

3) Please change hypothesize to hypothesized. - line 82

Done.

4) I have two possible limitations of the study. Please addressed them.

I) there are fallers in the older adults sample, but not in young. This should be mentioned.

II) the number of young and older participants (especially for women) is many different. This should be mentioned too.

Done. Mentioned limitations were added.

REVIEWER

P.2, l.35-36 – I suggest starting the sentence including the word “Older women…” and change “with age” by “compared to the younger individuals” to make the sentence clearer for the readers.

Done. Sentence was rewritten as recommended.

P.7 Stair descent subsection – It seems that both stair descent and restabilization phases are being described in this subsection. However, there is another subsection (Restabilization) for the restabilization phase description. Please, review.

Word "Restabilization" was replaced by "This phase".

P.12, l.256-258 – I suggest including in this sentence the information that these data are about age comparisons, because in the way it is written, it seems that the authors are talking about gender differences.

Done. Sentence was rewritten.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Editor and Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Fabio A Barbieri

21 Dec 2020

Age-related differences in stair descent balance control: are women more prone to falls than men?

PONE-D-20-27933R2

Dear Dr. Kovacikova,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Fabio A. Barbieri, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Fabio A Barbieri

26 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-27933R2

Age-related differences in stair descent balance control: are women more prone to falls than men?

Dear Dr. Kovacikova:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Fabio A. Barbieri

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Editor and Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES