Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 421

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Postural Balance in a Random Sample of 7,979 Subjects Aged 30 Years and Over

Era, P., Sainio, P., Koskinen, S., Haavisto, P., Vaara, M., Aromaa, A.·2006·Gerontology

Abstract

Background: Reliable normative data for force platform measurements of postural balance have not been available. Methods: Data on postural balance were collected from a representative nationwide sample of a Finnish population aged ≧30 years (n = 7,979). As part of a comprehensive health survey (Health 2000), postural balance was measured with the help of a force platform system in four test conditions: normal standing with eyes open and closed (both for 30 s), semi-tandem (20 s) and tandem stand with eyes open (20 s). In addition, balance abilities were also evaluated by a non-instrumented field test. Results: The main findings of this study indicated that the differences in balance between subjects belonging to different age categories were apparent already among young and middle-aged subjects. This is true, however, only for the more accurate force platform measurements, as the field test showed a clear ceiling effect up to 60 years of age. At higher ages both methods indicated a further, accelerating decline in balance function. In most cases, males tended to have more pronounced sway, as indicated by the speed and amplitude aspects of the movement of the center of pressure during the force platform registrations and these differences were larger in the older age groups. In contrast, in the field test a larger proportion of males were able to achieve the highest category (10 s in tandem stand) and the proportion of subjects unable to stand for a minimum of 10 s feet side by side was larger among females than males. These observations may partly be due to differences in the participation/acceptable performance in the different tests. In addition, the field test and force platform measurements may partially reflect different aspects of balance abilities. Conclusion: The results of the present study provide normative values for force platform balance tests at an age of 30 years and above. Deterioration in balance function clearly starts at relatively young ages and further accelerates from at about 60 years upwards. Due to systematic differences between males and females, separate normative values for both sexes are needed. Due to marked ceiling effects the field test can only be recommended for older individuals, aged ≧60. On the other hand, force platform registrations in the more demanding tests (semi-tandem and tandem stands) suffer from floor effects in the oldest age groups.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000093652

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 421

Metadata

Authors
Era, P., Sainio, P., Koskinen, S., Haavisto, P., Vaara, M., & Aromaa, A.
Venue
Gerontology
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2006
Volume
52
Issue
4
Pages
204-213
ISSN
  • 0304-324X (ISSN-L)
  • 1423-0003
OpenAlex
W1981453909
Cited by
421
References
1
FWCI
27.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Postural Balance in a Random Sample of 7,979 Subjects Aged 30 Years and Over. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1159/000093652
The paper
Era, P., Sainio, P., Koskinen, S., Haavisto, P., Vaara, M., & Aromaa, A. (2006). Postural Balance in a Random Sample of 7,979 Subjects Aged 30 Years and Over. Gerontology. https://doi.org/10.1159/000093652

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.