Search

This registration describes a protocol for a scoping review that will attempt to address two key questions: 1) What types of technology are being used in clinical and laboratory settings to deliver exercise and physical activity interventions to older people and how do these relate to the type of intervention applied?; 2) In what (sub)populations of older adults are these technology-assisted interventions being applied?

Background and aim: Bilateral Vestibulopathy (BVP) leads to unsteadiness when walking, which worsens in darkness or on uneven ground, as well as oscillopsia during head or body movement. A previous review concluded that clinical balance tests that challenge multiple aspects of balance should be investigated, since simple tests struggle to distinguish between BVP and healthy participants. Our aim was (1) to test if the more comprehensive Mini-BESTest is feasible in BVP, (2) to examine how participants perform in terms of their overall and subcomponent scores and (3) to compare these scores with healthy reference data from the literature.Methods: Fifty participants with BVP completed the Mini-BESTest as part of a larger study. The Mini-BESTest has 4 components: anticipatory, reactive postural control, sensory orientation and dynamic gait. It comprises 14 items with a maximum score of 28. Falls incidence in the previous 12 months was obtained by questionnaire. To compare the overall and sub-scores between our participants with BVP and those of healthy participants from the literature (n=327; obtained via PubMed searches and contacting authors), Mann-Whitney U tests were used. Sub scores within the BVP group were also compared. Spearman correlations were used to investigate the relationships between Mini-BESTest score and age.Results: No floor or ceiling effects were observed. Participants with BVP had significantly lower Mini-BESTest total scores than the healthy group (BVP mean=20.8, Healthy mean=24.2, U(NBVP=49, NHealthy=327)=4564.00, p

Scientists rely upon an accurate scientific literature in order to build and test new theories about the natural world. In the past decade, observational studies of the scientific literature have indicated that numerous questionable research practices and poor reporting practices may be hindering scientific progress. In particular, 3 recent have indicated a implausibly high rate of studies with positive (i.e., hypothesis confirming) results. In Sports Medicine, a field closely related to Kinesiology, studies that tested a hypothesis indicated support for their primary hypothesis ~70\% of the time. However, a study of journals that cover the entire field of Kinesiology has yet to be completed, and the quality of other reporting practices, such as clinical trial registration, has not been evaluated. Therefore, in this study we will retrospectively evaluate 300 original research articles from the flagship journals of America (Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise), Europe (European Journal of Sport Science), and Australia (Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport).

This is a study of the positive result rates in the Kinesiology literature. This study also aims to describe study compliance good research practices such as preregistration and open data.

and presentation materials for my presentation at the ISB 2021 online conference titled "The feasibility and effectiveness of treadmill-based perturbations for assessing and improving walking stability in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a pilot study "

In second step, a systematic review of previous research about determinants on patient-reported functional mobility is done to decide, what variables to include into the third step of the project i.e. the quantitative part.

BACKGROUND: Context regarding how researchers determine the sample size of their experiments is important for interpreting the results and determining their value and meaning. Between 2018 and 2019, the journal Gait & Posture introduced a requirement for sample size justification in their author guidelines. RESEARCH QUESTION: How frequently and in what ways are sample sizes justified in Gait & Posture research articles and was the inclusion of a guideline requiring sample size justification associated with a change in practice? METHODS: The guideline was not in place prior to May 2018 and was in place from 25th July 2019. All articles in the three most recent volumes of the journal (84-86) and the three most recent, pre-guideline volumes (60-62) at time of preregistration were included in this analysis. This provided an initial sample of 324 articles (176 pre-guideline and 148 post-guideline). Articles were screened by two authors to extract author data, article metadata and sample size justification data. Specifically, screeners identified if (yes or no) and how sample sizes were justified. Six potential justification types (Measure Entire Population, Resource Constraints, Accuracy, A priori Power Analysis, Heuristics, No Justification) and an additional option of Other/Unsure/Unclear were used. RESULTS: In most cases, authors of Gait & Posture articles did not provide a justification for their study's sample size. The inclusion of the guideline was associated with a modest increase in the percentage of articles providing a justification (16.6-28.1%). A priori power calculations were the dominant type of justification, but many were not reported in enough detail to allow replication. SIGNIFICANCE: Gait & Posture researchers should be more transparent in how they determine their sample sizes and carefully consider if they are suitable. Editors and journals may consider adding a similar guideline as a low-resource way to improve sample size justification reporting. ispartof: GAIT & POSTURE vol:92 pages:333-337 ispartof: location:England status: published

The improvement of balance control through exercise generally appears to occur in a task-specific manner and the extent to which these training effects can be transferred to other tasks seems to be limited and understudied (Kümmel, J., Kramer, A., Giboin, L. et al. Specificity of Balance Training in Healthy Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Sports Med 46, 1261–1271 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0515-z). This is analogous to motor-skill transferability, which depends on the similarities between motor-tasks (Schmidt RA, Lee T. Motor control and learning; a behavioural emphasis. 5th ed. Leeds: Human kinetics; 2011.). However, it is unclear whether this is due to the specificity or challenge of the balance tasks being trained; tasks with highly challenging and more variable or dynamic movements may provide more stimulus for transferable adaptations. Board sports, such as snowboarding, skateboarding and surfing, is one group of very dynamic activities with high demands on balance and stability. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis will be to explore the relationships between board sport participation and balance control measured under laboratory or clinical settings. Specifically, the following research question will be addressed: Does board sport participation, representing participation in activities with high level balance control and demands, result in superior performance in common laboratory and clinical tests of balance?

Scientists rely upon an accurate scientific literature in order to build and test new theories about the natural world. In the past decade, observational studies of the scientific literature have indicated that numerous questionable research practices and poor reporting practices may be hindering scientific progress. In particular, 3 recent studies have indicated an implausibly high rate of studies with positive (i.e., hypothesis confirming) results. In sports medicine, a field closely related to kinesiology, studies that tested a hypothesis indicated support for their primary hypothesis ~70% of the time. However, a study of journals that cover the entire field of kinesiology has yet to be completed, and the quality of other reporting practices, such as clinical trial registration, has not been evaluated. In this study we retrospectively evaluated 300 original research articles from the flagship journals of North America (Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise), Europe (European Journal of Sport Science), and Australia (Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport). The hypothesis testing rate (~64%) and positive result rate (~81%) were much lower than what has been reported in other fields (e.g., psychology), and there was only weak evidence for our hypothesis that the positive result rate exceeded 80%. However, the positive result rate is still considered unreasonably high. Additionally, most studies did not report trial registration, and rarely included accessible data indicating rather poor reporting practices. The majority of studies relied upon significance testing (~92%), but it was more concerning that a majority of studies (~82%) without a stated hypothesis still relied upon significance testing. Overall, the positive result rate in kinesiology is unacceptably high, despite being lower than other fields such as psychology, and most published manuscripts demonstrated subpar reporting practices.