Explore the vast range of titles available.

Maintaining a stable upright posture is essential for performing activities of daily living, and impaired standing balance may impact an individual’s quality of life. Therefore, accurate and sensitive methods for assessing static balance are crucial for identifying balance impairments, understanding the underlying mechanisms of the balance deficiencies, and developing targeted interventions to improve standing balance and prevent falls. This review paper first explores the methods to quantify standing balance. Then, it reviews traditional posturography and recent advancements in using wearable inertial measurement units (IMUs) to assess static balance in two populations: older adults and those with incomplete spinal cord injury (iSCI). The inclusion of these two groups is supported by their large representation among individuals with balance impairments. Also, each group exhibits distinct aspects in balance assessment due to diverse underlying causes associated with aging and neurological impairment. Given the high vulnerability of both demographics to balance impairments and falls, the significance of targeted interventions to improve standing balance and mitigate fall risk becomes apparent. Overall, this review highlights the importance of static balance assessment and the potential of emerging methods and technologies to improve our understanding of postural control in different populations.

Background: Objective assessment of postural control is central to the clinical evaluation of vestibular disorders. Although force-platform-based posturography is considered the gold standard, its use may be limited by cost and infrastructural requirements. Wearable inertial measurement units (IMUs) represent a promising alternative; however, their clinical validation should account for intrinsic differences in measurement paradigms rather than strict metric equivalence. Objective: To preliminarily evaluate the within-session reliability of a wearable IMU-based medical device for balance assessment (Gravity), and its agreement with established static (SBP) and computerised dynamic posturographic systems (CDP) in healthy subjects. Methods: Sixty-three healthy adults were enrolled in two independent method comparison studies: a wearable IMU-based balance system versus a static stabilometric platform (GRAVITY vs. SVEP; n = 42) and a wearable IMU-based balance system versus computerised dynamic posturography (Gravity vs. EquiTest; n = 21). Gravity measurements were obtained simultaneously with reference systems across standardised sensory conditions. Within-session reliability and method agreement were assessed. Results: Within-session reliability of Gravity was outcome-dependent. Length-based components demonstrated higher repeatability (ICC (single) = 0.25–0.35; ICC (average) = 0.41–0.52), with narrower limits of agreement (LoA = ±9–12%) and lower measurement error (SEM = 3.3–4.3%). In comparison with SBP, length-based measures exhibited narrower limits (LoA = ±12–17) and more consistent relationships. Comparison with CDP revealed moderate agreement for composite and preferential scores (LoA: −2.20–7.07; −5.54–8.12). Conclusions: Gravity sensor may represent a clinically meaningful, outcome-dependent performance, with superior reliability and comparability for length-based postural measures compared with area-based measures. The device could provide balance assessments compatible with both static and dynamic posturographic systems, accounting for physiological variability. These findings support the potential clinical use of wearable IMU-based posturography, particularly in settings where conventional force-platform systems are not readily available, and warrant further validation in larger, more clinically diverse populations.