The Effectiveness of Proprioceptive Training for Improving Motor Performance and Motor Dysfunction: A Systematic Review.

Heterogeneity of outcome measures: Studies used a wide variety of proprioceptive and motor tests, making direct comparison and meta-analysis difficult. Lack of follow-up: A majority of studies did not assess long-term retention of training gains, so it is unknown how long improvements last. Definition ambiguity: Many included studies used multimodal training (e.g., visual feedback) rather than 'pure' proprioceptive training, making it difficult to isolate the specific contribution of proprioceptive mechanisms to motor improvement. Quality variation: PEDro scores varied among included studies, with some having lower methodological quality. No clear dosage guidelines: There was no consistent pattern for optimal training duration or intensity, although some evidence suggested longer balance interventions (6+ weeks) were more effective than shorter ones.

The authors declare no commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Funding was provided by the University of Minnesota Marty and Jack Rossmann Award.

Do not assume these interventions will produce significant proprioceptive gains in healthy, non-clinical populations or athletes. The review found that less than half of studies in healthy populations showed proprioceptive improvements, whereas clinical populations showed much more consistent benefits. Additionally, because most studies did not measure long-term retention, do not promise patients that these gains will persist indefinitely without ongoing practice.