SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Proprioception Training and Surrogate Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Definitions, Measures, and Effectiveness Claims.
Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background"Proprioception training" is widely advocated in rehabilitation and sports practice, yet the term encompasses heterogeneous constructs, interventions, and outcomes. Many trials infer proprioceptive benefits from surrogate outcomes (balance, strength, or pain) rather than direct psychophysical indices.
objectiveWe aimed to examine how proprioception is defined and measured, and how improvement is claimed, in randomized controlled trials.
methodsFollowing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched to October 2025. Eligible randomized controlled trials explicitly described interventions as "proprioceptive" or "sensorimotor training" and reported at least one proprioceptive outcome, either direct (e.g., joint position reproduction, threshold to detection of passive motion, active movement extent discrimination) or indirect (e.g., sway, balance). Methodological quality was appraised with the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale and risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool.
resultsFifty-one randomized controlled trials (n = 2319) were included. Comparative synthesis showed that improvements inferred from surrogate outcomes were more frequent and often larger than improvements observed in direct psychophysical measures. Directly targeted practice, angle specific, attentionally demanding, and aligned with the measured proprioceptive submodality and task construct, produced the most consistent benefits in position-reproduction accuracy/error, movement-detection sensitivity, or discrimination performance, depending on the outcome assessed. In contrast, multimodal regimens (balance, strengthening, taping, manual therapy) commonly improved balance, pain, strength, or function without comparably consistent evidence of enhanced direct psychophysical proprioceptive function.
conclusionsSpecific psychophysical components of proprioceptive function appear modifiable, but only when training explicitly targets the sensory construct measured. The field remains conceptually diffuse, with frequent conflation of sensorimotor performance and proprioception. Progress depends on defining proprioceptive submodalities a priori, privileging validated psychophysical outcomes over surrogate outcomes, and aligning intervention content with measurement to substantiate true perceptual learning rather than generic motor adaptation.
Identifiers
42700344What 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.