PTSystematic ReviewArchives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation2021

Effect of Functional Rehabilitation on Performance of the Star Excursion Balance Test Among Recreational Athletes With Chronic Ankle Instability: A Systematic Review.

Leanne Ahern, Orla Nicholson, Declan O'Sullivan and 1 others

PMID 34589684

WHAT IT FOUND

Wobble board balance work and hip strengthening gave the largest reach-distance gains in recreational athletes with chronic ankle instability, but most included trials were low quality, so treat the suggested dose of 3 sessions a week for 4-6 weeks as a guide, not proof.

Key findings

01Wobble board balance training and hip strengthening produced the largest average improvements in Star Excursion Balance Test reach distance, 14.3% and 12.8%, both above the change those tests need to detect a real difference.

02Ankle resistance-band strength training showed no significant improvement in the Y Balance Test: a 4.72% change, below the 7.7% the test needs to show a real difference, so the review judged it of limited effectiveness.

03Only 2 of the 10 trials were rated high quality and 7 were low quality, and the interventions differed too much to combine in a meta-analysis, so the review offers suggestions rather than conclusive findings.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

Only recreational athletes were studied, so these results may not carry over to less active patients or to general clinical groups. The whole review rests on 10 small trials with 368 people between them, and a single small study could sway the average change. Seven of the 10 trials were low quality and only 2 were high quality. Common problems were poor concealment of who got which treatment, no blinding of the people assessing the results, no intention-to-treat analysis, and no check that participants actually did the exercises. Five trials were rated at high risk of bias, mainly because it is hard to blind participants to an exercise programme. No meta-analysis was done, so the numbers in this review are descriptions of separate studies rather than one combined estimate; the authors themselves say the findings are not conclusive. Only 2 trials followed anyone up, at 1 week and 6 weeks, so nothing is known about longer-term effects. The only outcome examined was dynamic postural control on the Star Excursion Balance Test or Y Balance Test; self-reported function measures were not included. The suggestion that 4 weeks is long enough comes from comparing different studies with each other, not from a head-to-head trial, and only one of the 4-week trials was high quality. Only one low-quality trial directly compared two rehabilitation types, so no rehabilitation type can be called better than another.

Declared interests

The article text supplied contains no funding statement and no conflict of interest declaration, so it is not possible to say who paid for the work or what the authors declared.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read the suggested dose of three sessions a week for four to six weeks as tested and proven. Seven of the ten trials were low quality, the review combined no numbers, and the recommendation is the authors' reading of studies that mostly differed from one another. Nothing here shows these programmes reduce future ankle sprains.

Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →