Table 1: Study characteristics.

Author (year)Study designNumber of participants with strokeParticipant characteristics
(1) Age (years)
(2) Time after stroke
Baseline measures of stroke severityBaseline measures of clinical balance
/ambulatory performance
Category of balance measure Dependent measures of postural stability Statistics for association between WBA and postural stability

Van Asseldonk et al. (2006) [29]Cross-sectional 59.9 (8.3)
42.4 (17.1) months
MI 51.5 (16.1)FAC (4-5)
BBS 49 (7.6)
TUG 21.8 (11.9)
TBT (3–4)
DPContribution of paretic leg to
balance controla

Mansfield et al. (2011) [10]Cross-sectional 61 (14)
133 (194) days
NIHSS 4.6 (4.1)
ChMcS-leg 4.6 (1.3)
ChMcS-foot 4.2 (1.6)
BBS 37.9 (15.6) QSCOP amplitude synchronizationb  = 0.19–0.23

Mansfield et al. (2012) [30]Cross-sectional
Retrospective chart
Review
(1) 66.9 (14.9)
(2) 22.9 (23.5) days
NIHSS 3.5 (3.0)
ChMcS-leg 4.8 (1.3)
ChMcS-foot 4.5 (1.4)
BBS 36.9 (14.6) QS  
  
CB
  
FA  
COP amplitude synchronizationb  
BBS
  
Faller status  
.032–0.053  
  
 = 0.0490.057  
Multiple linear regression  
0
Multiple logistic regression

Marigold et al. (2004) [26]Cross-sectional 61.3 (8.9)
4.1 (2.9) years
Not reportedBBS 44.9 (8.3)DP TA amplitude
MG amplitude   
  
TA onset latencies   
MG onset latencies  
F2,18 = 1.51(p),   
 =  ,   
Anova  
F2,18 = 0.15(p),   
F2,18 = 0.19(p),

Marigold and Eng (2006) [25]Cross sectional
62.1 (8.6)
4.1 (2.7) years
ChMcS-leg 4 (3-5)
ChMcS-foot 5 (4–6)
BBS 46.2
(42.4–48.6) IQR
QSCOP amplitude (AP)
COP velocity (AP)
COP amplitude (ML)
COP velocity (ML)
.0049
.01
.044
 = 0.22

Pereira et al. (2010) [27]Cross-sectional 65 (10)
29 (23) months
Not reportedNot reportedCBFunctional Reach NS total group
= 0.10

Peurala et al. (2007) [28]Cross-sectional Left hemi 53.4 (8)
Right hemi 55.1 (8)
Left hemi 3.1 (4.8) years
Right hemi 2.8 (2.8) years
FIM
Left hemi
103.4 (10)
Right hemi
101.1 (13)
FAC (2–5)QSCOP velocity (AP)
COP velocity (ML)
Power peak magnitude (AP)c   
Power peak magnitude (ML)c
 = 0.18,   
 = 0.25  
 = 0.09–0.14  
  
 = 0.12–0.20  

Roerdink et al. (2009) [24]Cross-sectional* 61.2 (13.0)
9.8 (5.4) weeks
BFM
II–VI
FAC 1–4QSSway aread .073

Sackley (1991) [8]Longitudinal cohort 63.3 (21–87)
11.3 (5) weeks
Not reportedNot reportedFANumber of fallsNS

Values for descriptive data represent mean (sd) unless stated otherwise. Statistics represent as calculated from bivariate correlations unless stated otherwise. Significant associations are presented in bold. ↑: greater WBA is associated with more postural instability, : greater WBA is associated with less postural instability AP: anteroposterior, BBS: Berg Balance Scale, BFM: Brunnstrom Fugl-Meyer assessment, CB: clinical balance test, ChMcS: Chedoke-McMaster Stroke assessment scores, COP: center of pressure, DP: dynamic posturography, FA: falls in daily life, FAC: Functional Ambulation Categories, FIM: Functional Independence Measure, FR: Functional Reach test, IQR: interquartile range, MG: medial gastrocnemius, MI: Motricity Index, ML: mediolateral, N: number of stroke participants, NIHSS: National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, NP: non-paretic, NS: no significant association with WBA, p: paretic, QS: quiet standing posturography, TA: tibialis anterior, TBT: Timed Balance Test, TUG: Timed Up and Go test, WBA: weight-bearing asymmetry. *Longitudinal study, but correlations between WBA and postural control were analyzed cross-sectionally. a% contribution of the paretic leg to total amount of generated corrective torque. bCalculated by cross-correlating COP amplitude time series, cpower spectral density functions, dtotal area covered by the COP trajectory.