Can We Rely on Mobile Devices and Other Gadgets to Assess the Postural Balance of Healthy Individuals? A Systematic Review.

The consequences of falls, costs, and complexity of conventional evaluation protocols have motivated researchers to develop more effective balance assessments tools. Healthcare practitioners are incorporating the use of mobile phones and other gadgets (smartphones and tablets) to enhance accessibility in balance evaluations with reasonable sensitivity and good cost-benefit. The prospects are evident, as well as the need to identify weakness and highlight the strengths of the different approaches. In order to verify if mobile devices and other gadgets are able to assess balance, four electronic databases were searched from their inception to February 2019. Studies reporting the use of inertial sensors on mobile and other gadgets to assess balance in healthy adults, compared to other evaluation methods were included. The quality of the nine studies selected was assessed and the current protocols often used were summarized. Most studies did not provide enough information about their assessment protocols, limiting the reproducibility and the reliability of the results. Data gathered from the studies did not allow us to conclude if mobile devices and other gadgets have discriminatory power (accuracy) to assess postural balance. Although the approach is promising, the overall quality of the available studies is low to moderate.

Short-Term Effects of Different Rates of Thoracic Mobilization on Pressure Pain Thresholds in Asymptomatic Individuals: A Randomized Crossover Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to determine the effects of different rates of thoracic spine passive accessory intervertebral mobilization (PAIVM) on pressure pain threshold (PPT) at T4. The secondary aim was to investigate the widespread effects of different rates of thoracic PAIVM. METHODS: Twenty asymptomatic participants were randomly assigned to 3 experimental conditions: posteroanterior rotatory thoracic PAIVM at 2 Hz, 0.5 Hz, and placebo. Each participant received all 3 experimental conditions in a random order with a washout period of at least 48 hours between each procedure. The PPT was measured in 3 different points: pre-treatment, immediately after, and 15 minutes after the treatment at C7 and T4 spinous process, first interossei dorsal on the right and left hands and tibial tuberosity bilaterally. A repeated-measures analysis of covariance adjusted by baseline values was used to assess between-group differences at each point. Pairwise comparisons were adjusted for multiple tests with a Bonferroni correction. A P value < .05 was considered significant. RESULTS: There was no between-group differences on PPT at T4 when comparing 0.5 Hz (mean difference -0.29; 95% CI -0.99 to 0.42; P = .999) or 2 Hz (mean difference -0.37; 95% CI -1.1 to 0.33; P = .528) to placebo. CONCLUSION: None of the mobilization techniques in this study (0.5 Hz, 2 Hz, and placebo) showed a significant change of PPT both locally and at distant sites at any point in asymptomatic participants.