| Literature DB >> 28764704 |
Karina Berner1, Linzette Morris2, Jochen Baumeister3, Quinette Louw2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gait and balance deficits are reported in adults with HIV infection and are associated with reduced quality of life. Current research suggests an increased fall-incidence in this population, with fall rates among middle-aged adults with HIV approximating that in seronegative elderly populations. Gait and postural balance rely on a complex interaction of the motor system, sensory control, and cognitive function. However, due to disease progression and complications related to ongoing inflammation, these systems may be compromised in people with HIV. Consequently, locomotor impairments may result that can contribute to higher-than-expected fall rates. The aim of this review was to synthesize the evidence regarding objective gait and balance impairments in adults with HIV, and to emphasize those which could contribute to increased fall risk.Entities:
Keywords: Falls; Gait; HIV-1 infection; Postural balance
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28764704 PMCID: PMC5540197 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-017-1682-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Fig. 1PRISMA flow diagram of literature search and selection process
Methodological quality appraisal
| Trenkwalder 1992 [ | Arendt 1994 [ | Beckley 1998 [ | Bauer 2005 [ | Dellepiane 2005 [ | Simmonds 2005 [ | Scott 2007 [ | Richert 2011 [ | Bauer 2011 [ | Sullivan 2011 [ | Erlandson 2012a [ | Erlandson 2012b [ | Cohen 2012 [ | Beans 2013 [ | Mbada 2013 [ | Richert 2014 [ | Erlandson 2014 [ | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Research question/objective clearly stated? | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 2 | Study population clearly specified and defined? | N | N | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 3 | Participation rate of eligible persons at least 50%? | CD | CD | CD | CD | CD | CD | CD | N | CD | CD | Y | Y | Y | Y | CD | N | CD |
| 4 | All subjects recruited from similar populations? Eligibility criteria pre-specified and applied uniformly? | NR | N | N | Y | NR | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 5 | Justification of sample size? | N | N | N | Y | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
| 6 | Exposure(s) measured prior to outcome(s)?a | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | Y | N |
| 7 | Sufficient timeframe to see an association between exposure and outcome?a | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | Y | N |
| 8 | Different levels of the exposure measured, as related to the outcome? | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| 9 | Exposure measures clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently? | NR | Y | Y | Y | NR | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | NR | Y | Y | Y |
| 10 | Exposure(s) assessed more than once over time?a | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | CD | N |
| 11 | Outcome measures clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently? | CD | NR | NR | NR | CD | Y | Y | NR | Y | NR | N | N | N | Y | Y | NR | CD |
| 12 | Outcome assessors blinded to exposure status? | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| 13 | Loss to follow-up after baseline ≤20%?a | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N | N |
| 14 | Key potential confounders measured and statistically adjusted for? | N | N | N | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Total CAT score /14 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 2 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 6 | |
| Total CAT % | 7.14 | 21.43 | 21.43 | 50 | 14.29 | 42.86 | 50 | 42.86 | 42.86 | 42.86 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 57.14 | 42.86 |
Abbreviations: CD cannot determine, NR not reported
aCross-sectional analyses provide weaker evidence than cohort studies regarding a potential causal relationship between exposures and outcomes. For cross-sectional analyses, the answer to Questions 6, 7, 10 & 13 should be “No”. All studies were cross-sectional, except for Richert 2014 (prospective longitudinal cohort)
Sample characteristics, all participants
| Study ID | Country, setting | Serostatus & sample size (N) | Gender (%) | Age (years) (SD) | BMI (kg/m2) (SD) | Edu-cation (years) (SD) | Recreational drug use/Alcohol consumption/smoking (N) | Depression/PN/Other co-morbidities |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trenkwalder 1992 [ | Germany, NR | HIV+ 50 | M 96 | 42.5 (9.3) | NR | NR | 4 / NR / NR | NR/Yes/Various neurological deficits |
| HIV- 50 | NR | 37.5 (11.0) | NR | NR | NR / NR / NR | NR / NR / Healthy | ||
| Arendt 1994 [ | Germany, NR | HIV+ 46 | M 74 | ASX: 36.33 (9.18) | NR | NR | 0 / 0 / NR | NR / No / HIV type-1-related encephalopathy ( |
| HIV- 38 | M 53 | 37.7 (10.21) | NR | NR | NR / NR / NR | NR / NR / Healthy | ||
| Beckley 1998 [ | USA, NR | HIV+ 9 | M 89 | 38.9 (10.7) | NR | NR | 0 / 0 / NR | NR / No / PGL ( |
| HIV- 10a | M 50 | 34.3 (7.8) | NR | NR | NR / NR / NR | NR / No / Healthy | ||
| Bauer 2005 [ | USA, outpatient infectious disease clinics | HIV+ 90 | M 39 | NRx: 40 (7.2) | NR | NRx: | Large % Hx of drug abuse/NRx: 39.3%; NNRTI: 40%; PI: 35.1%/NR | NRx: 42.9%, NNRTI: 28%, PI: 35.1%/NR/Exclusion criteria eliminated major psychiatric-, medical- & neurological disorders |
| HIV- 78 | M 47.4 | 38 (7.1) | NR | 12.6 (2.2) | Large % Hx of drug abuse/16.7%/NR | 17.9% / NR / Healthy | ||
| Simmonds 2005 [ | USA, out- patient AIDS facility | HIV+ 100 | M 78 | 40.70 (7.49) | NR | NR | NR / NR / NR | NR / No / Exclusion criteria eliminated major medical & neurological disorders |
| HIV- 105a | M 37 | 44.9 (14.7) | NR | NR | NR / NR / NR | NR / No / Healthy | ||
| Dellepiane 2005 [ | Italy, NR | HIV+ 30 | M 40 | ASX: 28 (NR) | NR | NR | NR / NR / NR | NR / NR / Alcoholic cirrhosis ( |
| HIV- 55 | M 64 | 35 (NR) | NR | NR | NR / NR / NR | NR / NR / Healthy | ||
| Scott 2005 [ | USA, HIV clinic | HIV+ 27 | M 100 | 48.7 (6.5) | 24.2 (4.1) | NR | NR / NR / NR | NR / NR / Exclusion criteria eliminated major medical & neurological disorders |
| Richert 2011 [ | France, HIV clinics | HIV+ 324 | M 80 | b47.6 (41.8, 53.9) | b22.5 (20.6, 24.6) | NR | NR / NR / NR | NR / 14% / Hepatitis B: 7%, Hepatitis C: 19% |
| Bauer 2011 [ | USA, outpatient infectious disease clinics | HIV+ 121 | M 58 | BMI < 21: 39.4 (1.0); BMI 21–29: 40.9 (0.8); | <21( | NR | No differences between groups/No differences between groups/NR | Significant differences ( |
| HIV- 86 | M 49 | BMI < 21: 38.5 (1.3); | <21( | NR | No differences between groups/No differences between groups/NR | Significant differences ( | ||
| Sullivan 2011 [ | USA, HIV clinics, local community | HIV+ 40 | M 70 | 41 (NR) | M 25.4 (3.34); | M 14.1 (3.05); | NR / No differences between groups/M 43%, F 20% | BDI: M 10.5 (8.33); F 12.8 (9.26)/M 26%, F 17%/NR |
| HIV- 83 | M 48 | 44 (NR) | M 26.9 (4.83); | M 15.9 (2.27); | NR / No differences between groups/M 10%, F 0% | BDI: M 2.08 (2.33), F 2.9 (3.08)/NR/Without medical or psychiatric conditions | ||
| Erlandson 2012a [ | USA, Infectious Diseases Group Practice clinic | HIV+ 359 | M 85 | b50.8 (47.7, 55.7) | NR | NR | IDU (<1%), Cocaine (<1%), Marijuana (23%) / >7 drinks/wk. (4%) / Current: 34% | NR /NR/NR |
| Erlandson 2012b [ | USA, Infectious Diseases Group Practice clinic | HIV+ 359 | M 85 | 52 (0.3) | NR | NR | Current IDU (<1%) / >7 drinks/wk.: Non-fallers (4%), Single fallers (7%), Re-fallers (2%) / Non-fallers (30%), Single-fallers (42%), Re-fallers (47%) | NR/NR/30% reported ≥1 falls during the past year (of those, 61% were recurrent fallers) |
| Cohen 2012 [ | USA, multiple clinical subsites | HIV+ 247 | M 51 | 48.9 (8.9) | NR | NR | NR/No/NR | NR/NR/Exclusion criteria eliminated spinal injury, vestibular impairment, use of narcotics, antihistamines or sedatives within 48 h of testing |
| HIV- 200 | M 84 | 54.2 (11.2) | NR | NR | NR/No/NR | NR/NR/NR | ||
| Beans 2013 [ | USA, Baltimore VA Medical Center | HIV+ 45 | M 100 | 54.4 (6.3) | <25 (51.1%) | NR | NR/NR/69.0% | NR/NR/Diabetes 26.7%, Hepatitis C 71.1%, Hypertension 68.9%, Chronic Pulmonary Disease 20%, Dyslipidemia 36.4%, Anemia 24.4% |
| HIV- 27 | M 100 | 54.7 (6.2) | <25 (32.4%) | NR | NR/NR/56.8% | NR/NR/Diabetes 18.9%, Hepatitis C 55.6%, Hypertension 73%, Chronic Pulmonary Disease 29.7%, Dyslipidemia 25.8%, Anemia 37.8% | ||
| Mbada 2013 [ | Nigeria, Virology Research Clinic | HIV+ 37 | M 40.5 | 35.68 (7.71) | 22.77 (4.17) | NR | NR/NR/NR | NR/NR/NR |
| HIV- 37 | M 40.5 | 35.73 (7.88) | 24.31 (4.24) | NR | NR/NR/NR | NR/NR/Healthy | ||
| Richert 2014 [ | France, HIV clinics | HIV+ 178 | M 81 | b48 (43, 56) | b22.2 (20.5, 24.5) | NR | Prior IDU (14%)/NR/NR | NR/NR/Cerebral CDC stage C condition: 3%, Hepatitis B: 7%, Hepatitis C: 20% |
| Erlandson 2014 [ | USA, Infectious Diseases clinic | HIV+ 359 | M 85 | 52 (5.2) | 26.4 (6.0) | NR | Current IDU (<1%) /NR/NR | NR/NR/NR |
Abbreviations: AIDS Acquired Human Immunodeficiency Syndrome, ART antiretroviral therapy, ASX asymptomatic, BDI Beck Depression Inventory, BMI Body Mass Index, CDC Centre for Disease Control, DAST-10 Drug Abuse Screening Test, F female, HAART highly active antiretroviral therapy, HIV human immunodeficiency virus, Hx history, IDU intravenous drug use, M male, MAST Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test, MDD Major Depressive Disorder, N number of participants, NA not applicable, NNRTI non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, NR not reported, NRTI nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, NRx no treatment, PGL Persistent generalized lymphadenopathy, PI protease inhibitor, PN peripheral neuropathy, SD Standard Deviation, SX symptomatic, USA United States of America, WR Walter Reed stages
aRetrospective control group of healthy volunteers from previous study
bMedian (IQR)
Sample characteristics, PLHIV
| Study ID | Disease staging | CD4 cell count, cells/mm3 (SD) | Viral load (SD) | Treatment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trenkwalder 1992 [ | WR I-II ( | NR | NR | NR |
| Arendt 1994 [ | CDC II ( | NR | NR | NR |
| Beckley 1998 [ | ASX ( | Range 65–701; 5 participants had AIDS-defining CD4 counts (<200) | NR | Most were on zidovudine maintenance therapy |
| Bauer 2005 [ | NR | NRx: 351 (282); NNRTI: 457 (375); PI: 320 (200) |
| NRx: |
| Simmonds 2005 [ |
| Range 189.83 (183.27) - 386.36 (302.39) |
| NR |
| Dellepiane 2005 [ |
| NR | NR | NR |
| Scott 2007 [ | NR | 408 (293) |
| All were on a NRTI-based regimen, with 82% receiving a PI as a third agent |
| Richert 2011 [ | CDC category C: 23% | a520 (348, 709) | <500 copies/ml: 83% | 89% |
| Bauer 2011 [ | NR | BMI <21: 280 (52); BMI 21–29: 422 (40); BMI > 29: 361 (64) |
|
|
| Sullivan 2011 [ | NR | M 537.4 (258.97); F 583.4 (103.55) | M 13597.6 (4654.88); F 4609.7 (3226.36) | HAART: |
| Erlandson 2012a [ | NR | a551 (361, 768) | Detectable (≥48 copies/mL): 5% | NR |
| Erlandson 2012b [ | NR | 594 (16) | 95% had plasma HIV-1 RNA < limits of detection | Any didanosine: Non-fallers: 57 (23); Single fallers: 10 (23); Recurrent fallers: 24 (36) Any stavudine: Non-fallers: 93 (37); Single fallers: 22 (51); Recurrent fallers: 33 (50) Efavirenz: Non-fallers: 86 (34); Single fallers: 10 (23); Recurrent fallers: 22 (33) |
| Cohen 2012 [ | NR | 556.4 (284) |
| HAART: 76.9% |
| Beans 2013 [ | NR | a445 (265, 531) | Non-detectable (<400 copies/ml): 91% | Majority were receiving cART |
| Mbada 2013 [ | All: Clinical stage I of HIV/AIDS (ASX HIV infection, with PGL) | NR | NR | 100% HAART |
| Richert 2014 [ | CDC stage C 24% | a506 (340, 715) | HIV RNA level < 500 copies/ml: 84% | 89% on ART |
| Erlandson 2014 [ | NR | 594 (303) | HIV-1 RNA < limits of detection: 95% | All participants taking effective cART |
Abbreviations: AIDS acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, ART antiretroviral therapy, ASX asymptomatic, BMI Body Mass Index, cART combination antiretroviral therapy, CDC Centre for Disease Control, F female, HAART highly active antiretroviral therapy, HIV human immunodeficiency virus, IQR interquartile range, M male, N number of participants, NA not applicable, NNRTI non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, NR not reported, NRTI nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, NRx no treatment, PGL Persistent generalized lymphadenopathy, PI protease inhibitor, PLHIV people living with HI, SD standard deviation, SX symptomatic, WR Walter Reed staging
aMedian (IQR)
Study aims
| Study ID | Design | Aim |
|---|---|---|
| Trenkwalder 1992 [ | Cross-sectional | To measure postural performance quantitavely in PLHIV (in different disease stages) versus seronegative controls, using a force plate. |
| Arendt 1994 [ | Cross-sectional | To determine if stance control is impaired in early versus late HIV infection, using a force plate, and to compare results with the COG patterns in pyramidal or extrapyramidal disease. |
| Beckley 1998 [ | Cross-sectional | To evaluate postural reflexes with EMG in PLHIV without obvious neurological disease, in order to determine whether postural reflexes are early markers of CNS involvement. |
| Bauer 2005 [ | Cross-sectional | To assess sensorimotor function in PLHIV and seronegative controls. |
| Simmonds 2005 [ | Cross-sectional | To characterize physical performance in PLHIV, and to examine group differences by pain and fatigue. |
| Dellepiane 2005 [ | Cross-sectional | To investigate whether posturography can detect the presence of possible disorders of the vestibulo-spinal reflex. |
| Scott 2007 [ | Cross-sectional | To determine the extent of neuromuscular activation of selected lower limb muscles of male PLHIV receiving ART, and its relationship to performance in clinical functional tests. |
| Richert 2011 [ | Cross-sectional | To provide standardized assessments of locomotor function in PLHIV, focusing on lower limb muscle performance and balance, and on potential determinants of functional impairment. |
| Bauer 2011 [ | Cross-sectional | To compare balance and gait in participants who differ in BMI and the presence or absence of HIV/AIDS. |
| Sullivan 2011 [ | Cross-sectional | To investigate whether infratentorial brain volume would be marked by regional tissue shrinkage in PLHIV versus seronegative controls, and whether tissue deficits would be related to impairment in postural stability or psychomotor speed, using structural MRI and quantitative tests of postural stability, finger movement, psychomotor speed and dexterity. |
| Erlandson 2012a [ | Cross-sectional | To compare the FFP, SPPB, and 400-m walk in PLHIV. |
| Erlandson 2012b [ | Cross-sectional | To determine fall-rate and -risk factors among PLHIV by correlating fall history, medical diagnoses, and functional tests. |
| Cohen 2012 [ | Cross-sectional | To determine whether PLHIV on HAART had an increased prevalence of vestibular disorders versus seronegative controls, using standard screening tests of vestibular and balance function. |
| Beans 2013 [ | Cross-sectional | To compare locomotor function in male PLHIV versus seronegative controls, and test the association with aerobic exercise capacity. |
| Mbada 2013 [ | Cross-sectional | To compare HRQOL and a performance-based measure of functional capacity between a homogenous sample of clinical stage I PLHIV versus seronegative controls. |
| Richert 2014 [ | Prospective cohort | To prospectively assess the changes in locomotor function in PLHIV over time and to evaluate the determinants of variations in lower limb muscle performance. |
| Erlandson 2014 [ | Cross-sectional | To assess the impact of physical function impairments on HRQOL in PLHIV using ART. |
Abbreviations: ART antiretroviral therapy, BMI body mass index, CNS central nervous system, COG centre of gravity, EMG electromyography, FFP Fried’s Frailty Phenotype, HRQOL health-related quality of life, PLHIV people living with HIV, SPPB Short Physical Performance Battery
Studies assessing balance outcomes
| Trenkwalder 1992 [ | Arendt 1994 [ | Beckley 1998 [ | Bauer 2005 [ | Dellepiane 2005 [ | Simmonds 2005 [ | Richert 2011 [ | Bauer 2011 [ | Sullivan 2011 [ | Cohen 2012 [ | Erlandson 2012a [ | Erlandson 2012b [ | Richert 2014 [ | Erlandson 2014 [ | Total studies assessing outcome | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Balance outcome | Mean sway path (m/min) | X | 1 | |||||||||||||
| Sway velocity (m/s) | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Sway area (μVxs) | X | X | 2a | |||||||||||||
| AP | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| LAT | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| AP/LAT quotient | X | X | 2b | |||||||||||||
| Romberg ratio of sway velocity; RW | X | X | 2a | |||||||||||||
| Romberg area of sway; RA | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Way | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| SOT sway strategy score | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| SOT EQ | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| SOT number of falls; time before fall | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| FBOS; LOS | X | X | 2c | |||||||||||||
| Latencies of postural reflexes (ms) | X | X | X | 3a | ||||||||||||
| Duration of postural reflexes | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Amplitude of postural reflexes | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Area of single EMG potential | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Normalized amplitude of ML-response | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Standardized LL Z-scores | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Romberg ECF (sec) | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Tandem stance (sec) | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Single leg stance time (sec) | X | X | X | X | 4d | |||||||||||
| Berg balance score | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| TUG time (sec) | X | X | 2e | |||||||||||||
| 5STS time (sec) | X | X | X | 3f | ||||||||||||
| 5STS pace (rises/s) | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| 360° turn time | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Walk heel-to-toe (number of steps) | X | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Forward reach distance (cm) | X | X | 2g |
Abbreviations: 5STS 5-times sit-to-stand test, AP average velocity in an anterior-posterior direction, cm centimeters, ECF eyes-closed-on-foam, EMG electromyography, EQ equilibrium quotient, FBOS functional base of support, LAT average velocity in a medial-lateral direction, LL long loop, LOS limits of stability, m meters, min minute, ML medium loop, ms millisecond, RA Romberg area of sway, RW Romberg ratio of sway velocity, sec second, SOT sensory organization test, TUG timed-up-and-go test
aMeta-analysis performed
bMeta-analysis not done as Arendt 1994 does not report SD values
cMeta-analysis not done as Bauer 2005 does not report values for control group
dMeta-analysis not done due to heterogeneity in methodologies: Richert 2011 uses established normative values as comparison; Sullivan 2011 uses max time of 60 s, Richert 2014 has no comparison values
eMeta-analysis not done as Richert 2014 has no comparison group
fMeta-analysis not done as Richert 2011 & 2014 has no comparison groups
gMeta-analysis not done as Richert 2011 uses established normative values as comparison
Studies assessing gait outcomes
| Bauer 2005 [ | Simmonds 2005 [ | Scott 2007 [ | Richert 2011 [ | Bauer 2011 [ | Erlandson 2012a [ | Erlandson 2012b [ | Beans 2013 [ | Mbada 2013 [ | Richert 2014 [ | Erlandson 2014 [ | Total studies assessing outcome | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gait outcomes | Gait speed (m/s), preferred and/or fast | X | X | X | X | X | 5a | ||||||
| Timed gait (sec) | X | X | X | 3b | |||||||||
| Cadence (time in sec for 5 steps), fast and preferred | X | X | 2 | ||||||||||
| Gait initiation time (sec), fast and preferred | X | 1 | |||||||||||
| 6MWD | X | X | X | X | X | X | 6c |
Abbreviations: 6MWD 6-min walk distance, m meter, sec second
aMeta-analysis not possible as Bauer 2005 did not report mean results for gait speed and Richert 2014 included no comparison group or norm values
bMeta-analysis not possible as Bauer 2005 did not report mean for gait speed and Erlandson 2012a, 2012b & 2014 included no comparison groups or norm values
cOnly 2 out of 6 studies included in meta-analysis, as Beans 2013 included men only, Scott 2007 & Richert 2011 & 2014 included no comparison groups or norm values (note heterogeneity between samples of the 2 studies included meta-analysis)
dMeta-analysis not possible, as Bauer 2005 did not report mean results for cadence or gait initiation time
Summary of objective balance outcomes and results
| Study ID | Results | Method of measurement | Outcomes assessed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trenkwalder 1992 [ | b,a | 4 conditions on force plate: Bilat stance EO + stable; Bilat stance EC + stable; Bilat stance EO + foam; Bilat stance EC + foam. | Mean sway path (m/min): EO & EC + foamb(all PLHIV except WR I-II)/EC + stable or foamb(all PLHIV)/All other conditions a |
| Arendt 1994 [ | b,a | 2 conditions on force plate: Bilateral stance EO; Bilateral stance EC. | Sway velocity (m/s)b / AP/LAT quotient a |
| Beckley 1998 [ | b,a | Leg reflexes elicited in participants while standing upright on movable force plate - surface EMG recordings obtained from left tibialis anterior and medial gastrocnemius | Onset latencies (SL, ML and LL) (ms) / Normalized amplitude of MLa/LL-amplitude scaling (predictable a; unpredictable b) |
| Bauer 2005 [ | b,a | 1) SOT, 3 conditions: EO, EC, inaccurate visual input | 1) SOT, for each condition: EQ. (EOa, ECb, inaccuratea)/Number of fallsa/Time before a fall (seconds)a
|
| Simmonds 2005 [ | a | Loaded forward reach | Distance reached (cm)a |
| Richert 2011 [ | a,c | 1) BBS | 1) Berg scorea
|
| Dellepiane 2005 [ | b, a | 1) Static posturography: Romberg’s position on force plate; EO & EC | 1) Static: |
| Bauer 2011 [ | b, a | 1) SOT, 3 conditions: EO, EC, inaccurate visual input | 1) SOT: Dependent variables calculated for each condition were: |
| Sullivan 2011 [ | b, a | Walk-a-Line Battery. Conditions: Stand Heel-to-Toe; Walk Heel-to-Toe; and SLS. | 1) Stand Heel-to-Toe time (seconds)a
|
| Cohen 2012 [ | c | Romberg tests on stable and on foam, 4 conditions: EO + stable, EC + stable, EO + foam, EC + foam. | Romberg time, EC + foam (seconds)c |
| Erlandson 2012a [ | c | Tandem stand and 5STS as part of SPPB | 5STS time (part of SPPB score)c/Tandem stance time (part of SPPB score)c |
| Erlandson 2012b [ | c | Tandem stand and 5STS as part of SPPB | 5STS time (part of SPPB score)c/Tandem stance time (part of SPPB score)c |
| Richert 2014 [ | c | 1) 5STS test | 1) 5STS time (seconds)c
|
| Erlandson 2014 [ | c | 5STS | 5STS pace (rises/s)c |
Outcomes included in meta-analyses are not included in this table
Abbreviations: 5STS 5-times-sit-to-stand, AP Average velocity in anterior-posterior direction, ASX asymptomatic; BBS Berg Balance Scale, Bilat bilateral, COP center of pressure, deg. degree, EC eyes closed, EMG electromyography, EO eyes open, EQ equilibrium quotient, FBOS functional base of support, FR functional reach, LAT average velocity in medial-lateral direction, LL long loop, LOS limits of stability, ML medium loop, PLHIV people living with HIV, RW Romberg index reported to way = ratio of way with EO & EC, RA Romberg index reported to area = ratio of area with EO & EC, SL short loop, SLS single leg stance, SOT sensory organization test, SX symptomatic, TUG timed-up-and-go
ano significant difference between PLHIV and controls
bPLHIV significantly impaired compared to controls or normative reference values
cNo comparison provided/impairment quantified by reporting proportion of PLHIV with deficits
Summary of objective gait outcomes and results
| Study ID | Results | Method of assessment | Spatiotemporal outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bauer 2005 [ | a | 8-m walk (preferred and fast) | Gait speed: time (sec) to cover distancea
|
| Simmonds 2005 [ | b | 50-ft (15.24-m) walk (preferred and fast) | Gait speed: time (sec) to cover distanceb |
| Scott 2007 [ | b | 6MWD | Distance covered (m) in 6 minb |
| Richert 2011 [ | c | 6MWD | Distance covered (m) in 6 minc |
| Bauer 2011 [ | b | 8-m walk (preferred and fast) | Preferredb and fast gait initiation time (sec) |
| Erlandson 2012a [ | c | 4-m walk as part of SPPB | Only presented as part of SPPB score |
| Erlandson 2012b [ | c | 1) 4-m walk as part of SPPB | 1) Only presented as part of SPPB score |
| Beans 2013 [ | d,a | 1) 6MWD | 1) Distance covered (m) in 6 mina
|
| Richert 2014 [ | b | 1) 6MWD | 1) Distance covered (m) in 6 minb
|
| Erlandson 2014 [ | c | 400-m walk (fast pace) | Gait speed (m/s)c |
Outcomes included in meta-analyses are not included in this table
Abbreviations: 6MWD 6 min walk distance, m meters, min minutes, sec seconds, SPPB short physical performance battery
aNo significant difference between PLHIV and controls
bPLHIV significantly impaired compared to controls or normative reference values
cNo comparison provided/impairment quantified by reporting proportion of PLHIV with deficits
dControls performed worse
Fig. 2Meta-analysis of sway area (μVxs) in PLHIV, eyes open
Fig. 3Meta-analysis of sway area (μVxs) in PLHIV, eyes closed
Fig. 4Meta-analysis of Romberg ratio of sway velocity in PLHIV
Fig. 5Meta-analysis of left leg postural reflex latencies in PLHIV: short loop latencies (ms)
Fig. 6Meta-analysis of left leg postural reflex latencies in PLHIV: medium loop latencies (ms)
Fig. 7Meta-analysis of left leg postural reflex latencies in PLHIV: long loop latencies (ms)
Fig. 8Meta-analysis of right leg postural reflex latencies in PLHIV: short loop latencies (ms)
Fig. 9Meta-analysis of right leg postural reflex latencies in PLHIV: long loop latencies (ms)
Fig. 10Meta-analysis of 6-Minute Walk Distance (m) in PLHIV