SynthesisFrontiers in neurology
The effect of dual-task on postural control and gait in individuals with Down syndrome: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims: Individuals with Down syndrome (DS) exhibit deficits in postural control (PC) and gait. Dual-task (DT) paradigms, which involve performing concurrent cognitive or motor tasks, may exacerbate these deficits or, conversely, serve as effective interventions. Objective: This systematic review synthesizes evidence on how DT conditions affect PC and gait in individuals with DS, examining both acute effects and long-term training outcomes. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from inception to February 2025. Included studies examined DT effects on PC or gait in DS populations. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I (non-randomized studies; non-RCTs) and RoB-2 (randomized controlled trials; RCTs). Due to heterogeneity in the outcome measures, a narrative synthesis following SWiM guidelines was conducted. Results: Ten studies [363 participants; mean age 13.66 ± 2.53 years; eight non-RCTs (including six with control groups) and two RCTs] met inclusion criteria. Eight studies examining acute DT effects demonstrated that concurrent cognitive or motor tasks significantly impaired gait parameters (reduced velocity, increased step time, prolonged double support phase) and increased postural sway in individuals with DS compared to single-task conditions. These deficits were observed across various DT paradigms, including counting, word generation, and object manipulation. Conversely, two long-term DT intervention studies (8 weeks) reported significant improvements in dynamic balance, functional independence, and DT performance. IQ scores, reported in six studies (mean range: 26.97-66.60), correlated positively with gait speed and step length. Risk of bias was moderate in seven studies, low in two, and raised some concerns in one. Conclusion: Acute DT conditions compromise PC and gait in individuals with DS, reflecting attention resource limitations. However, preliminary evidence suggests that DT training may improve long-term functional outcomes. Longitudinal, high-quality RCTs with standardized protocols and comprehensive cognitive assessment are urgently needed to establish evidence-based DT interventions for this population and determine whether initial improvements are sustained over time. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42023483849, CRD42023483849.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.