Effects of different balance practice methods on motor learning in unstable environments: a randomized pre-post experimental design.

The participants were 26 healthy university students with no balance problems and no experience of the task. Nothing here was tested in older adults, in people with neurological or orthopaedic conditions, or in anyone who has trouble balancing. The groups were small and the authors report that the study was underpowered for comparing the groups with each other, so a real difference between the methods may have been missed rather than absent. One participant was excluded after an injury unrelated to the slackline. Training lasted three weeks. The authors point out that balance training programmes usually run four to twelve weeks and that changes in postural sway often need six weeks or more, so a longer programme might have shown something different. The groups differed in how the arms were held and where the eyes were focused, and the authors say these factors may themselves have influenced balance. Follow-up was one week only, so nothing is known about whether any of the changes lasted.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The paper does not state who funded the work.

Do not read the authors' conclusion that passive assistance was best as evidence that a therapist's hands-on support works better than canes or than practising unaided. The three groups were never significantly different from one another at any test point, and the trial was too small to rule out a difference either way.