Table 5.

Parameters evaluated in the studies considered for review.

Authors	Sample	Setting	Intervention Characteristics/Outcomes	Finding
Reference		Length of Intervention
1. Wang, Q., & Zhao, Y. (International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2021;18(12))	n = 44 (9 m, 35 w); EG (22) and CG (22); Mean = 64.1 years	(RCT) 6 weeks 3/week 60–90 min/session 10’ min of warm-up	Parameters: Force, FSST, ROM of Ankle joint and force of plantar flexor muscles	Improvements in FSST, and ROM of experimental group to Control group (both feets). Improvements in large trainnings. Group better results in COP and total walking distance.
			Adherence: 88.3%	Inconsistent results in the postural control of the experimental group
2. Buransri, M., & Phanpheng, Y. (Muscles, Ligaments and Tendons Journal 2021; 11(2):215–222)	n = 90; EG (45) and CG (45); Mean = 60–75 years	(RCT) 12 weeks 3/week 45 min/session 5’ min of warm-up streching: 15’ Intensity: 60–75% FCmáx.	Health parameters: blood pressure, FC, weigh, IMC and Body composition (BIA). Equilibrium, movility and FRT (TUG), Walking capacity (6MWT), Force of lower limbs (SS) an Force ol upper limbs	EG and CG improved data from physiological parameters. Significant improves of Equilibrium and mobility. Gait velocity improved past intervervention.
				The intervention improved strength, lower body endurance, and core stability, being the balance and effectiveness of sensitive muscle structures and control of body movement, a primary ability to perform everyday tasks with confidence in advanced ages.
3. Hofgaard, J., et al. (Hofgaard, J.; Ermidis, G.; Mohr, M. Biomed Res. Int. 2019, 9)	n = 25 (9 m,16 w); EG (15) and CG (10); Mean ± SD = 75 ± 5 years	(RCT) 6 weeks 2/week Session 1–6 of 30 min/session. The rest session 45 min/session	1 week between measurements. Health parameters: BP, resting HR, muscle mass and body fat content. Postural balance: BBS and FAB. Mobility: SPPB, TUG, 6MWT, 30 sec sitting and standing test.	The BP was reduced more than in the CG, the BBS and FAB scores improved, the latter being higher than the CG, in the 6-min walk, the 30-second sitting and standing test, and TUG improved only in the IG and body fat content was reduced in GI, with no change in CG.
				6 weeks of Faroese chain dance training had beneficial effects, significantly improving postural balance, physical function and overall health.
4. Noopud, P., et al. (Aging Clinical and Experimental Research 2019; 31(7): 961–967)	n = 43 (43 m); EG (22) and CG (21); Mean = 60–80 years	(RCT) 12 weeks 3/week 30–60 min/session	2 evaluations (pre/post intervention). Functional Balance (FB): standardized tests of the NeuroCom Balance Master® system. SQT assesses agility and balance, balance and time of movement and WA, walking speed, stride width and length. The TUG test assesses agility. BBS that assesses FB	Improvements in Balance (TTDG) in EG. Significantly lower rocking speed and faster weight transfer in SS test (p ≤ 0.001) and TTDG. Faster turning time in SQT (p ≤ 0.001), improved SO and WA, with faster movement times, gait speed and a better score on TUG after training (p ≤ 0.001).
			Adherence: 88.3%	Thai traditional dance could potentially prevent age-related mobility and balance and related risk of falls.
5. Brustio, P., et al. (Geriatric Nursing2018; 39(6): 635-639)	n = 163 (40 m,123w); Mean ± SD = 70 ± 4 years	16 weeks 2/week 60 min/session 10’ warm up. 40’ (slowly waltz, tango and foxtrot, polka, mazurka, and bachata or country) 10’ cooling (breathing exercises).	2 evaluations (pre/post intervention). Movility: TUG, TUGM, FSS.	Improvements (p < 0.05) in the mobility of a single task as in that of two tasks. Reduction in 9.84% (TUG), 9.12% (FSS) and 8.14% (TUGM) of t'. Dual task skills improve and 6.58% improve the physical components and 5.75% the mental ones.
			Adherence: 85%	The individual/pair dance has positive effects on the mobility of one or double tasks.
6. Bennett, C. G., & Hackney, M. E. (Disability and Rehabilitation 2018; 40 (11): 1259–1265)	n = 23 (3 m, 20w); EG (12) and CG (11); Mean = 65–93 years	(RCT) 8 weeks 2/week 60 min/session 10’ warm up 40’ Main part of session 10’ cooling Intensity: medium	2 evaluations (pre/post intervention) Balance in daily tasks with the BBS. The strength of the knee extensors and knee flexors of the dominant side Lower extremities: SPPB. Gait speed and mobility limitations: 400m walk test. The limitation of perceived mobility: PCD.	The self-reported difficulty of climbing stairs was reduced but not the difficulty of walking 400 m. 8 weeks of line dancing improved knee muscle strength, lower extremity function, gait speed, endurance, and perceived mobility limitations.
			Adherence: 80%	Line dancing involves socializing, which can increase enjoyment and adherence. It involves dynamic control of balance and large muscle groups in the lower extremities to improve physical function and reduce mobility limitations.
7. Rodacki, A. L. F. et al. (Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation 2017; 33 (4): 244–249)	n = 30 (30 w); EG (15) mean ± SD = 69.1 ± 6.6 years and CG (15) mean ± SD = 71.5 ± 7.5 years	(RCT) 8 weeks 3/week 60 min/session 10’ warm up 40’ specific dance (boleros, waltzes and typical Brazilian dances “Forró” and “Sertanejo”) 10’ cooling Intensity: 60–70% FCmáx.	2 evaluations (pre/post intervention) Functional performance: 6MWT, TT and TUG; length of COP, the mean oscillation speed, the area of oscillation of HR and the dynamic equilibrium with the test of the steps.	Functional performance improved in the Tinetti test, TUG and 6 min walk; the static equilibrium in the path length of the COP, the oscillation speed and the medium frequency oscillation area, and the dynamic equilibrium. CG remained unchanged.
				Ballroom dance-based training is an attractive stimulus for older adults. They improved the static and dynamic conditions of balance and functional performance, thus helping to prevent falls.
8. Cruz-Ferreira, A. et al. (Research on Aging 2015; 37(8):837–855)	n = 57 (57w); EG (32) and CG (25); Mean = 65–80 years	(RCT) 24 weeks 3/week 50’/ session 15’ warm-up 25’ main part of session (exercises of balance, agility, strength, flexibility and coordination) 10’ cooling (relaxation and breathing). Creative Dance (CD): they associate images with corporal expression.	Evaluation: middle and final intervention. SFT, 6MWT, flexibility with chair sit-down test, motor agility/dynamic balance through 8-foot rise and fall test, and body composition.	Differences between CE and CG (p < 0.05) post-intervention. The GE better physical condition than GC, also improving strength, aerobic endurance, flexibility, motor agility and dynamic balance. Better EC than CG (Friedman Test) (p < 0.05) post-intervention.
			Adherence: 85%	21% lower limb strength, 10% aerobic resistance and 13% lower limb flexibility and dynamic balance, 4% weight, 8% waist circumference and 5% BMI. The CG did not show improvement in physical fitness after the intervention.
9. Granacher, U., et al. (Gerontology 2012; 58(4): 305–312)	n = 28 (w y m); EG (14) and CG (14); Mean = 63–82 years	(RCT) 8 weeks 2/week 60 min/session 10’ warm-up (static and dynamic balance exercises in salsa), 45’ salsa (individual and in pairs) 5’ cool-down.	2 evaluations (pre/post intervention). CDT and MMSE test. Static postural control by balancing on one leg on a balance platform. Dynamic postural control: walking on a pressure-sensitive instrumentalized walkway. Leg extensor power: countermovement jump on force platform.	The salsa-based intervention program is safe, feasible, and enjoyable for older adults. It improves static postural control, especially the dynamic one, helping prevent falls. More specific training is needed to improve space-time gait variability and muscle power.
			Adherence: 92.5%	Stride speed, length and time improved significantly. It did not affect various measures of gait variability and leg extensor power.