Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 274

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study of Home-Based Step Training in Older People Using Videogame Technology

Open access
Schoene, Daniel, Lord, Stephen R., Delbaere, Kim, Severino, Connie, Davies, Thomas A., Smith, Stuart T.·2013·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Stepping impairments are associated with physical and cognitive decline in older adults and increased fall risk. Exercise interventions can reduce fall risk, but adherence is often low. A new exergame involving step training may provide an enjoyable exercise alternative for preventing falls in older people. PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility and safety of unsupervised, home-based step pad training and determine the effectiveness of this intervention on stepping performance and associated fall risk in older people. DESIGN: Single-blinded two-arm randomized controlled trial comparing step pad training with control (no-intervention). SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-seven older adults residing in independent-living units of a retirement village in Sydney, Australia. INTERVENTION: Intervention group (IG) participants were provided with a computerized step pad system connected to their TVs and played a step game as often as they liked (with a recommended dose of 2-3 sessions per week for 15-20 minutes each) for eight weeks. In addition, IG participants were asked to complete a choice stepping reaction time (CSRT) task once each week. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: CSRT, the Physiological Profile Assessment (PPA), neuropsychological and functional mobility measures were assessed at baseline and eight week follow-up. RESULTS: Thirty-two participants completed the study (86.5%). IG participants played a median 2.75 sessions/week and no adverse events were reported. Compared to the control group, the IG significantly improved their CSRT (F31,1 = 18.203, p<.001), PPA composite scores (F31,1 = 12.706, p = 0.001), as well as the postural sway (F31,1 = 4.226, p = 0.049) and contrast sensitivity (F31,1 = 4.415, p = 0.044) PPA sub-component scores. In addition, the IG improved significantly in their dual-task ability as assessed by a timed up and go test/verbal fluency task (F31,1 = 4.226, p = 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: Step pad training can be safely undertaken at home to improve physical and cognitive parameters of fall risk in older people without major cognitive and physical impairments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12611001081909.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0057734

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 274

Metadata

Authors
Schoene, D., Lord, S. R., Delbaere, K., Severino, C., Davies, T. A., & Smith, S. T.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2013-03-05
Volume
8
Issue
3
Pages
e57734
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2022815841
Cited by
274
References
5
FWCI
59.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study of Home-Based Step Training in Older People Using Videogame Technology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0057734
The paper
Schoene, D., Lord, S. R., Delbaere, K., Severino, C., Davies, T. A., & Smith, S. T. (2013). A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study of Home-Based Step Training in Older People Using Videogame Technology. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057734

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.