SynthesisPloS one2026
Dose-response relationships of sensorimotor-based interventions on balance performance in older adults: A systematic review and meta-regression analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Falls are a severe public health challenge for older adults. Although sensorimotor-based interventions can remodel balance, their quantitative dose-response trajectories remain unknown, often leading to blindly accumulated doses. We aimed to identify optimal intervention strategies by deconstructing these non-linear dynamics. A comprehensive search of five databases up to February 2026 identified relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We constructed a random-effects model using the standardized mean difference (Hedges' g). Restricted cubic spline (RCS) and meta-regression models explored the non-linear dynamics of total intervention dose and the moderating effects of age. We included 24 studies comprising 1,110 participants. Sensorimotor-based interventions significantly improved dynamic balance (Timed Up and Go Test [TUGT]: g = -0.89, Q = 78.19; low-certainty evidence), static balance (Berg Balance Scale [BBS]: g = 0.94, Q = 21.14; high-certainty evidence), and neuromuscular control, including Center of Pressure with eyes open (COP-EO: g = -0.66, Q = 8.19; low-certainty evidence) and Center of Pressure with eyes closed (COP-EC: g = -0.34, Q = 3.54; moderate-certainty evidence). The RCS model suggested significant non-linear dose dependency for dynamic balance (P non-linearity = 0.004), indicating a potential relative attenuation of effect sizes near a cumulative dose of 1000 minutes. Conversely, static balance showed no significant dose association. Increasing age significantly attenuated dynamic balance benefits (p = 0.047) but did not negatively affect static stability. The adaptive trajectories of dynamic and static balance responding to sensorimotor interventions diverge fundamentally. Based on these non-linear dose-response fluctuations and age-related characteristics, continuous time accumulation may not guarantee proportional linear returns. Optimizing fall prevention requires shifting toward precise interventions that consider dose-efficiency and age stratification rather than a "more is better" approach. Systematic Review Registration: INPLASY202630061.
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.