Table 1 Basic characteristics of included case-control studies

Yi-Liang(2015) [21]

case-control

60.5(4.1)

13

59.7 (3.0)

13

local communities and affiliated hospital

Single-leg standing

TUG

STS

Ito(2018) [22]

case-control

75.5 (5.1)

28

73.7 (5.7)

46

Department of Physical Medicine

and Rehabitation

eyes closed

Muscle Vibration

RPW

Brumagne (2004) [23]

case-control

63

10

63

10

Department of Physical Medicine

and Rehabilitation

1. control (no vibration);

2. bilateral vibration of thetriceps surae tendons;

3. bilateral vibration of the Tibialis anterior tendons;

4. bilateral vibration of the Paraspinal muscle bellies

COP

Ito(2017) [24]

case-control

76.7 (4.2)

47

73.8 (4.9)

64

NationalCenter for Geriatric and

Gerontology

Muscle Vibration

RPW

Lee(2016) [25]

case-control

64.5 (5.7)

30

66.2 (4.5)

26

University Hospital,

local communities, and around the campus

Postural perturbation

COP

Iversen(2009) [26]

case-control

75.5 (5.1)

28

73.7 (5.7)

46

tertiary care spine center

static standing

TUG

COP

Kendall(2018) [27]

case-control

82.4 (4.6)

24

81.1 (4.3)

19

a preventative

home visit

program

static standing

COP

Sung(2017) [28]

case-control

65.1 (13.5)

51

63.6 (15)

59

community

walk

gait parameters

Lihavainen(2010) [29]

case-control

80.6 (4.8)

291

80.1 (4.4)

314

all the inhabitants of thecity in Finland

static standing

eyes open

eyes close

Feet together

COP

Champagne(2012) [30]

case-control

68.9 (6.6)

15

69.4 (6.4)

15

local community

–

TUG

One-leg stance

Walking speed

Hicks(2018) [31]

case-control

69.3 (6.7)

54

71.1 (6.8)

54

community

walk

gait parameters

Silva(2016) [32]

case-control

70.0(8)

10

73.0 (7)

10

local community

one-leg stance

COP

Kato(2019) [33]

case-control

77.4 (4.2)

21

78.1 (4.4)

17

outpatient of hospital

one-leg standing

standing time