Title

Normative data for human postural vertical: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Document Type

Journal Article

Publication Title

PLoS One

ISSN

1932-6203

Volume

13

Issue

9

First Page

0204122

Last Page

0204122

PubMed ID

30265701

Publisher

10.1371/journal.pone.0204122

Comments

Originally published as : Conceição, L. B., Baggio, J. A., Mazin, S. C., Edwards, D. J., & Santos, T. E. (2018). Normative data for human postural vertical: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS one, 13(9), e0204122.

Original article can be found here

Abstract

Perception of verticality is required for normal daily function, yet the typical human detection error range has not been well characterized. Vertical misperception has been correlated with poor postural control and functionality in patients after stroke and after vestibular disorders. Until now, all the published studies that assessed Subjective Postural Vertical (SPV) in the seated position used small groups to establish a reference value. However, this sample size does not represent the healthy population for comparison with conditions resulting in pathological vertical. Therefore, the primary objective was to conduct a systematic review with meta-analyses of Subjective Postural Vertical (SPV) data in seated position in healthy adults to establish the reference value with a representative sample. The secondary objective was to investigate the methodological characteristics of different assessment protocols of SPV described in the literature. A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane libraries. Mean and standard deviation of SPV in frontal and sagittal planes were considered as effect size measures. Sixteen of 129 identified studies met eligibility criteria for our systematic review (n = 337 subjects in the frontal plane; n = 187 subjects in sagittal plane). The meta-analyses measure was estimated using the pooled mean as the estimator and its respective error. Mean reference values were 0.12°±1.49° for the frontal plane and 0.02°±1.82° for the sagittal plane. There was a small variability of the results and this systematic review resulted in representative values for SPV. The critical analysis of the studies and observed homogeneity in the sample suggests that the methodological differences used in the studies did not influence SPV assessment of directional bias in healthy subjects. These data can serve as a reference for clinical studies in disorders of verticality.

DOI

10.1371/journal.pone.0204122

Share

 
COinS