Sports Medicine

, Volume 46, Issue 9, pp 1261–1271 | Cite as

Specificity of Balance Training in Healthy Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  • Jakob KümmelEmail author
  • Andreas Kramer
  • Louis-Solal Giboin
  • Markus Gruber
Systematic Review



It has become common practice to incorporate balance tasks into the training program for athletes who want to improve performance and prevent injuries, in rehabilitation programs, and in fall prevention programs for the elderly. However, it is still unclear whether incorporating balance tasks into a training program increases performance only in these specific tasks or if it affects balance in a more general way.


The objective of this systematic literature review and meta-analysis was to determine to what extent the training of balance tasks can improve performance in non-trained balance tasks.

Data Sources

A systematic literature search was performed in the online databases EMBASE, PubMed, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science. Articles related to balance training and testing in healthy populations published between January 1985 and March 2015 were considered.

Study Eligibility Criteria

A total of 3093 articles were systematically evaluated. Randomized controlled trials were included that (i) used only balance tasks during the training, (ii) used at least two balance tests before and after training, and (iii) tested performance in the trained balance tasks and at least one non-trained balance task. Six studies with a total of 102 subjects met these criteria and were included into the meta-analysis.

Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods

The quality of the studies was evaluated by means of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. A random effect model was used to calculate the between-subject standardized mean differences (SMDbs) in order to quantify the effect of balance training on various kinds of balance measures relative to controls. The tested balance tasks in each study were classified into tasks that had been trained and tasks that had not been trained. For further analyses, the non-trained balance tasks were subdivided into tasks with similar or non-similar body position and similar or non-similar balance perturbation direction compared to the trained task.


The effect of balance training on the performance of the trained balance tasks reached an SMDbs of 0.79 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.48–1.10], indicating a high effect in favor for the trained task, with no notable heterogeneity (I 2 = 0 %). The SMDbs in non-trained categories reached values between −0.07 (95 % CI −0.53 to 0.38) and 0.18 (95 % CI −0.27 to 0.64), with non-notable to moderate heterogeneity (I 2 = 0–32 %), indicating no effect of the balance training on the respective non-trained balance tasks.


With six studies, the number of studies included in this meta-analysis is rather low. It remains unclear how the limited number of studies with considerable methodological diversity affects the outcome of the SMD calculations and thus the general outcome of the meta-analysis.


In healthy populations, balance training can improve the performance in trained tasks, but may have only minor or no effects on non-trained tasks. Consequently, therapists and coaches should identify exactly those tasks that need improvement, and use these tasks in the training program and as a part of the test battery that evaluates the efficacy of the training program. Generic balance tasks—such as one-leg stance—may have little value as overall balance measures or when assessing the efficacy of specific training interventions.


Electronic Supplementary Material Figure Electronic Supplementary Material Table Balance Training Balance Task Trained Task 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors want to thank Tobias Schenk for his help with the literature search.

Compliance with Ethical Standards


This work was supported by a Grant from the German Research Foundation (MU3327/2-1).

Conflict of interest

Jakob Kümmel, Andreas Kramer, Louis-Solal Giboin and Markus Gruber declare that they have no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this review.

Supplementary material

40279_2016_515_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (263 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 263 kb)


  1. 1.
    Hrysomallis C. Balance ability and athletic performance. Sports Med. 2011;41(3):221–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zech A, Hübscher M, Vogt L, et al. Balance training for neuromuscular control and performance enhancement: a systematic review. J Athl Train. 2010;45(4):392.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Herman K, Barton C, Malliaras P, et al. The effectiveness of neuromuscular warm-up strategies, that require no additional equipment, for preventing lower limb injuries during sports participation: a systematic review. BMC Med. 2012;10:75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hübscher M, Zech A, Pfeifer K, et al. Neuromuscular training for sports injury prevention: a systematic review. Med Sci Sport Exerc. 2010;42(3):413–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sherrington C, Whitney JC, Lord SR, et al. Effective exercise for the prevention of falls: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008;56(12):2234–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zech A, Hubscher M, Vogt L, et al. Neuromuscular training for rehabilitation of sports injuries: a systematic review. Med Sci Sport Exerc. 2009;41(10):1831–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lesinski M, Hortobágyi T, Muehlbauer T, et al. Dose-response relationships of balance training in healthy young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2015;45(4):557–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lesinski M, Hortobágyi T, Muehlbauer T, et al. Effects of balance training on balance performance in healthy older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2015;45(12):1721–38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Horak FB, Wrisley DM, Frank J. The Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) to differentiate balance deficits. Phys Ther. 2009;89(5):484–98.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hirase T, Inokuchi S, Matsusaka N, et al. Effects of a balance training program using a foam rubber pad in community-based older adults: a randomized controlled trial. J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2015;38(2):62–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sayenko DG, Masani K, Vette AH, et al. Effects of balance training with visual feedback during mechanically unperturbed standing on postural corrective responses. Gait Posture. 2012;35(2):339–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Donath L, Roth R, Rueegge A, et al. Effects of slackline training on balance, jump performance & muscle activity in young children. Int J Sports Med. 2013;34(12):1093–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Donath L, Roth R, Zahner L, et al. Slackline training and neuromuscular performance in seniors: a randomized controlled trial. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2015. doi: 10.1111/sms.12423.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, et al. Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther. 2003;83(8):713–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Macedo LG, Elkins MR, Maher CG, et al. There was evidence of convergent and construct validity of Physiotherapy Evidence Database quality scale for physiotherapy trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(8):920–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Version 5.1. 0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. http://www.cochrane-handbookorg. 2014.
  17. 17.
    Schiftan GS, Ross LA, Hahne AJ. The effectiveness of proprioceptive training in preventing ankle sprains in sporting populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sci Med Sport. 2015;18(3):238–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hedges LV, Olkin I. Statistical method for meta-analysis: Academic Press; 2014.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lakens D. Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Front Psychol. 2013. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Br Med J. 2003;327(7414):557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ogaya S, Ikezoe T, Soda N, et al. Effects of balance training using wobble boards in the elderly. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(9):2616–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sihvonen SE, Sipila S, Era PA. Changes in postural balance in frail elderly women during a 4-week visual feedback training: a randomized controlled trial. Gerontology. 2004;50(2):87–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yaggie JA, Campbell BM. Effects of balance training on selected skills. J Strength Cond Res. 2006;20(2):422–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zemkova E, Hamar D. The effect of 6-week combined agility-balance training on neuromuscular performance in basketball players. J Sport Med Phys Fit. 2010;50(3):262–7.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Winter DA, Patla AE, Frank JS. Assessment of balance control in humans. Med Prog Technol. 1990;16(1–2):31–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Giboin L-S, Gruber M, Kramer A. Task-specificity of balance training. Hum Mov Sci. 2015;44:22–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Schmidt RA, Lee T. Motor control and learning. 5th ed. Human kinetics; 1988.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Beck S, Taube W, Gruber M, et al. Task-specific changes in motor evoked potentials of lower limb muscles after different training interventions. Brain Res. 2007;1179:51–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Granacher U, Muehlbauer T, Gruber M. A qualitative review of balance and strength performance in healthy older adults: impact for testing and training. J Aging Res. 2012. doi: 10.1155/2012/708905.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gruber M, Gollhofer A. Impact of sensorimotor training on the rate of force development and neural activation. Eur J Appl Phys. 2004;92(1–2):98–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gruber M, Gruber SB, Taube W, et al. Differential effects of ballistic versus sensorimotor training on rate of force development and neural activation in humans. J Strength Cond Res. 2007;21(1):274–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Muehlbauer T, Besemer C, Wehrle A, et al. Relationship between strength, power and balance performance in seniors. Gerontology. 2012;58(6):504–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Behm DG, Muehlbauer T, Kibele A, et al. Effects of strength training using unstable surfaces on strength, power and balance performance across the lifespan: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2015;45(12):1645–69.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jakob Kümmel
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andreas Kramer
    • 1
  • Louis-Solal Giboin
    • 1
  • Markus Gruber
    • 1
  1. 1.Sensorimotor Performance Lab, Department of Sport Science, FG SportwissenschaftUniversität KonstanzConstanceGermany

Personalised recommendations