Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 16, 2025
Evaluating Postural Control and Lower-extremity Muscle Activation in Individuals with Chronic Ankle Instability
Published on: September 18, 2020
Noninstrumented Clinical Assessment of Static Postural Stability in Chronic Ankle Instability: A Systematic Review
Yuta Koshino1, Takumi Kobayashi2
1Faculty of Health Sciences, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan.
Context:
Several clinical tests are available to assess static postural stability in individuals with chronic ankle instability (CAI); however, it is unclear which test should be used.
Objective:
To determine which noninstrumented clinical tests should be used to detect static postural stability deficits in individuals with CAI.
Evidence Acquisition:
We searched 4 databases from their inception to February 2023, and included studies comparing static postural stability in individuals with CAI and healthy controls using noninstrumented assessments. Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics, participant information, static postural stability assessment methods, and results. We calculated the pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval using a random effects meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of the evidence.
Evidence Synthesis:
Fourteen cross-sectional studies (293 participants with CAI and 284 healthy controls) were included. The meta-analysis showed no significant differences between the CAI and healthy groups in the double-leg stance condition of the Balance Error Scoring System (BESS) (SMD, -0.03; low-certainty evidence). Significant group differences were found in the BESS single-leg stance (SLS) on firm and foam surfaces (SLS firm: SMD, 0.47, very low-certainty evidence; SLS foam: SMD, 0.80, very low-certainty evidence), the tandem stance (TS) on firm and foam surfaces (TS firm: SMD, 0.39, low-certainty evidence; TS foam: SMD, 0.76, low-certainty evidence), and the total BESS in the foam conditions (SMD, 1.12, very low certainty evidence). Significant differences were also found between the CAI and healthy groups in the foot-lift (SMD, 1.24; very low certainty evidence) and time-in-balance tests (SMD, -0.94; very low certainty evidence).
Conclusions:
Due to the large magnitude of the differences, the SLS foam, TS foam, and the total BESS in the foam conditions, as well as the foot-lift test or time-in-balance test, may be the most appropriate to clinically identify static postural stability impairment in individuals with CAI.
