To identify components of postural control included in standardized balance measures for adult populations. Electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases using keyword combinations of postural balance/equilibrium, psychometrics/reproducibility of results/predictive value of tests/validation studies, instrument construction/instrument validation, geriatric assessment/disability evaluation, gray literature, and hand searches. Inclusion criteria were measures with a stated objective to assess balance, adult populations (18y and older), at least 1 psychometric evaluation, 1 standing task, a standardized protocol and evaluation criteria, and published in English. Two reviewers independently identified studies for inclusion. Sixty-six measures were included. A research assistant extracted descriptive characteristics and 2 reviewers independently coded components of balance in each measure using the Systems Framework for Postural Control, a widely recognized model of balance. Components of balance evaluated in these measures were underlying motor systems (100% of measures), anticipatory postural control (71%), dynamic stability (67%), static stability (64%), sensory integration (48%), functional stability limits (27%), reactive postural control (23%), cognitive influences (17%), and verticality (8%). Thirty-four measures evaluated 3 or fewer components of balance, and 1 measure-the Balance Evaluation Systems Test-evaluated all components of balance. Several standardized balance measures provide only partial information on postural control and omit important components of balance related to avoiding falls. As such, the choice of measure(s) may limit the overall interpretation of an individual's balance ability. Continued work is necessary to increase the implementation of comprehensive balance assessment in research and practice.

Background In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), interval exercise has gained recent attention as a possible means of achieving greater physiological training effects compared with continuous exercise. The primary aim of this systematic review was to compare the effects of interval versus continuous training on peak oxygen uptake, peak power, 6 minute walk test (6MWT) distance and health-related quality of life in individuals with COPD. Methods Randomised controlled trials comparing the effects of interval versus continuous training in patients with COPD were identified after searches of six databases and reference lists of appropriate studies in May 2009. Two reviewers independently assessed study quality. Weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% CIs were calculated using a random effects model for measures of exercise capacity and health-related quality of life. Results: Eight randomised controlled trials, with a total of 388 patients with COPD, met the inclusion criteria. No significant differences were found for peak power (WMD 1 W, 95% CI −1 to 3) or peak oxygen uptake (WMD −0.04 l/min, 95% CI −0.13 to 0.05) between interval and continuous training. The WMD for the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire dyspnoea score was −0.2 units (95% CI −0.5 to 0.0). There was no difference in 6MWT distance between groups (WMD 4 m, 95% CI −15 to 23). Conclusions Interval and continuous training modalities did not differ in their effect on measures of exercise capacity or health-related quality of life. Interval training may be considered as an alternative to continuous training in patients with varying degrees of COPD severity.