Table 1.
Basic characteristics of included case-control studies
| References Design | Basic data of Participant | Balance task | Outcome measure (balance performance) |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LBP | Health | Source of participants | ||||||
| Age (mean ± SD) | N | Age (mean ± SD) | N | |||||
| Yi-Liang(2015) [21] | case-control | 60.5(4.1) | 13 | 59.7 (3.0) | 13 | local communities and affiliated hospital | Single-leg standing |
TUG STS |
| Ito(2018) [22] | case-control | 75.5 (5.1) | 28 | 73.7 (5.7) | 46 |
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabitation |
eyes closed Muscle Vibration |
RPW |
| Brumagne (2004) [23] | case-control | 63 | 10 | 63 | 10 |
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation |
1. control (no vibration); 2. bilateral vibration of thetriceps surae tendons; 3. bilateral vibration of the Tibialis anterior tendons; 4. bilateral vibration of the Paraspinal muscle bellies |
COP |
| Ito(2017) [24] | case-control | 76.7 (4.2) | 47 | 73.8 (4.9) | 64 |
NationalCenter for Geriatric and Gerontology |
Muscle Vibration | RPW |
| Lee(2016) [25] | case-control | 64.5 (5.7) | 30 | 66.2 (4.5) | 26 |
University Hospital, local communities, and around the campus |
Postural perturbation | COP |
| Iversen(2009) [26] | case-control | 75.5 (5.1) | 28 | 73.7 (5.7) | 46 | tertiary care spine center | static standing |
TUG COP |
| Kendall(2018) [27] | case-control | 82.4 (4.6) | 24 | 81.1 (4.3) | 19 |
a preventative home visit program |
static standing | COP |
| Sung(2017) [28] | case-control | 65.1 (13.5) | 51 | 63.6 (15) | 59 | community | walk | gait parameters |
| Lihavainen(2010) [29] | case-control | 80.6 (4.8) | 291 | 80.1 (4.4) | 314 | all the inhabitants of thecity in Finland |
static standing eyes open eyes close Feet together |
COP |
| Champagne(2012) [30] | case-control | 68.9 (6.6) | 15 | 69.4 (6.4) | 15 | local community | – |
TUG One-leg stance Walking speed |
| Hicks(2018) [31] | case-control | 69.3 (6.7) | 54 | 71.1 (6.8) | 54 | community | walk | gait parameters |
| Silva(2016) [32] | case-control | 70.0(8) | 10 | 73.0 (7) | 10 | local community | one-leg stance | COP |
| Kato(2019) [33] | case-control | 77.4 (4.2) | 21 | 78.1 (4.4) | 17 | outpatient of hospital | one-leg standing | standing time |
N number of participants in the study, COP centre of pressure, RPW relative proprioceptive weighting, STS sit-to-stand test, TUG timed up and go test. LBP low back pain participants, Health healthy participants without low back pain