The objective of this review was to determine the effects of dual task exercise for balance performance.
The following comparisons were made:
a. Dual task exercise versus single task exercise
b. Dual task exercise versus no treatment (including placebo and shamtreatment)
Searches
We identified RCTs by electronically searching the following databases:
1. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). (The Cochrane Library 2013, issue 6).
2. MEDLINE from Jan. 1960- June2013.
3. EMBASE from Jan. 1960- June 2013.
4. CBMdisc from Jan. 1960- June 2013.
5. Web of science from Jan. 1960- June 2013.
6. Ebsco from Jan. 1960- June 2013.
Types of study to be included
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only about modified dual task exercise versus single task exercise for balance function in elderly adults. No language or publication date limits were set.
Condition or domain being studied
Population aging is a global phenomenon that presents a huge challenge to humanity (Kirkwood 2010, Harman 2001). The proportion of the global population 60+ years old increases from 10.0%in 2000 to 21.8% in 2050 and then to 32.2%in 2100 (Lutz 2008). A third of people over 65 years of age, and one half of people aged over 80 years have a fall at least once a year (Campbell 1990, Sattin 1992).
Participants/ population
1.Participants (both male and female) aged 18 years or older.
Intervention(s), exposure(s)
A dual-task exercise is a procedure in experimental psychology that requires an individual to perform two tasks simultaneously. (such as performing cognitive tasks while performing balance exercises).
Comparator(s)/ control
a. Dual task exercise versus single task exercise
b. Dual task exercise versus no treatment (including placebo and shamtreatment)
Outcome(s)
Primary outcomes
1. Gait velocity.
2. Reduction in gait variability.
3. Balance function test: Berg Balance Scale, Timed Up & Go Test (TUG), The Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale, et al.
4. Values of Body Sway.
Secondary outcomes
1. Falls, which means the number of falls (for example, fall rate per person year, rate ratio).
2. Fallers, which means the number of people who fall (for example, fallers/non-fallers/multiple fallers, time to first fall).
3. Adverse effects of the interventions.
Data extraction, (selection and coding)
A standardised form was used to extract data from the included papers. The following data were extracted: study design (RCT), study characteristics (e.g. country where the study was conducted, recruitment modality, source of funding, risk of bias), patient characteristics (e.g. number of participants, age, gender), description of the experimental and control interventions, duration of follow-up, types of outcomes assessed, and the authors, results and conclusions. Data were extracted independently by the same two review authors who conducted the selection of studies. Any disagreements were discussed and an arbiter consulted when necessary. Data relating to the primary outcomes were assessed for inclusion in the meta-analyses and final value scores (means and standard deviations) were extracted.
Risk of bias (quality) assessment
Level of concealment of allocation at randomisation was assessed using the criteria in the Cochrane Handbook. Studies were categorised for adequacy of concealment of the assigned treatment prior to allocation, and for blinding of outcome assessors. Methodological quality was also assessed for each study by two review authors independently, initially using a pre-determined ten-item scoring system. Review authors were not blinded to author and source institution of included studies. Disagreements were resolved by third party adjudication.
Strategy for data synthesis
We have pooled results of trials with comparable interventions and participant characteristics using the generic inverse variance method in Review Manager (RevMan 5). We calculated pooled, rate ratios for pain and risk ratios for disability with 95% confidence intervals using the fixed-effect model. Where there was substantial statistical heterogeneity we pooled the data, if appropriate, using the random-effects model.
Analysis of subgroups or subsets
Regardless of possible heterogeneity of the included studies, the following stratified analyses were conducted:
1) By control groups as defined in Types of intervention (see Types of comparisons); and
2) by time, that is, short-term (closest to one to three months), intermediate (closest to six months) and long-term follow-up (closest to 12 months).
Contact details for further information
Wang Xueqiang
221 Yanan Rd
Shanghai, 200040
China
qiang897@163.com
Organisational affiliation of the review
Shanghai University of Sport
None
Review team
Dr Wang Xueqiang, Shanghai University of Sport Dr Zheng Jiejiao, Huadong Hospital affiliated to Fudan University Professor Wei Maoling, West China Hospital, Sichuan University Professor Song Yanyan , School of Public Health , Shanghai Jiaotong University Mr Fan Yujing, Shanghai University of Sport Professor Chen Peijie, Shanghai University of Sport
Anticipated or actual start date
09 December 2011
Anticipated completion date
08 June 2013
Funding sources/sponsors
The Shanghai Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 06JC14027).
Formal screening of search results against eligibility criteria
Data extraction
Risk of bias (quality) assessment
Data analysis
Prospective meta-analysis
PROSPERO This information has been provided by the named contact for this review. CRD has accepted this information in good faith and registered the review in PROSPERO. CRD bears no responsibility or liability for the content of this registration record, any associated files or external websites.
