↓ Skip to main content

Effects of Strength Training Using Unstable Surfaces on Strength, Power and Balance Performance Across the Lifespan: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Sports Medicine, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
54 X users
facebook
7 Facebook pages
video
3 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
109 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
494 Mendeley
Title
Effects of Strength Training Using Unstable Surfaces on Strength, Power and Balance Performance Across the Lifespan: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Published in
Sports Medicine, September 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40279-015-0384-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

David G. Behm, Thomas Muehlbauer, Armin Kibele, Urs Granacher

Abstract

The effectiveness of strength training on unstable surfaces (STU) versus stable surfaces (STS) or a control condition (CON; i.e. no training or regular training only) for strength, power and balance performance across the lifespan has not yet been investigated in a systematic review and meta-analysis. The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to determine the general effects of STU versus STS or CON on muscle strength, power and balance in healthy individuals across the lifespan and to investigate whether performance changes following STU are age specific. A computerized systematic literature search was performed in the electronic databases PubMed and Web of Science from January 1984 up to February 2015. Initially, 209 articles were identified for review. Only controlled trials were included if they investigated STU in healthy individuals and tested at least one measure of maximal strength, strength endurance, muscle power, or static/dynamic balance. In total, 22 studies met the inclusion criteria. The included studies were coded for the following criteria: age, sex, training status, training modality, exercise and test modality. Effect size measures included within-subject standardized mean differences (SMDw) and weighted between-subject standardized mean differences (SMDb). Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using I (2) and χ (2) statistics. The methodological quality of each study was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) Scale. Our search failed to identify studies that examined the effects of STU versus STS or CON in children and middle-aged adults. However, four studies were identified that investigated the effects of STU versus CON or STS in adolescents, 15 studies were identified in young adults and three studies were identified in old adults. Compared with CON, STU produced medium effects on maximal strength in young adults and no effects to medium effects in old adults. In addition, large effects were detected on strength endurance in adolescents and in young adults; in old adults, a small effect was found. With regard to muscle power, medium effects were observed in young adults and small effects were observed in old adults. Further, large effects were found for static and dynamic balance in old adults, but only a small effect was found for dynamic balance in young adults. The comparison of STU and STS revealed inconsistent results as indicated by training-induced changes in favour of STU, as well as STS. Small to medium effects were found for maximal strength in adolescents in favour of STS, and small effects were found in young adults in favour of STU. With regard to strength endurance, large effects were found in adolescents in favour of STS and small effects were found in favour of STU. Additionally, we detected small effects in young adults in favour of STU. In terms of muscle power, no effects were observed in adolescents but medium effects were found in favour of STS in young adults. With regard to balance, small effects were detected in adolescents for static and dynamic balance in favour of STU. In young adults, small effects were found for static balance in favour of STS. With regard to dynamic balance, the analysis revealed small effects in young adults in favour of STU. The quality of the included studies was rather low, with mean PEDro scores of 5.8, 4.0 and 5.0 for studies including adolescents, young adults and old adults, respectively. Further, trivial to considerable heterogeneity between studies (i.e. 0 % ≤ I (2) ≤ 96 %) was detected. Compared with CON, STU is effective in improving muscle strength, power and balance in adolescents, young adults and old adults. However, inconsistent results were particularly found in adolescents and young adults when the specific effects of STU were compared with those of STS. We conclude that the performance of STU compared with STS has limited extra effects on muscle strength, power and balance performance in healthy adolescents and young adults. Given that our systematic search did not identify studies that examined the effects of STU versus STS in children, middle-aged adults and old adults, further research of high methodological quality is needed to determine whether there are additive effects of STU as compared with STS in those age groups.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 54 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 494 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 492 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 90 18%
Student > Master 83 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 46 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 31 6%
Researcher 24 5%
Other 95 19%
Unknown 125 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 166 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 65 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 41 8%
Neuroscience 13 3%
Social Sciences 9 2%
Other 50 10%
Unknown 150 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 58. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 March 2024.
All research outputs
#740,558
of 25,562,515 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#688
of 2,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,000
of 279,654 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#9
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,562,515 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,887 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 57.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,654 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.