Is Postural Control Affected in People with Patellofemoral Pain and Should it be Part of Rehabilitation? A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis

Table 1 Meta-analytic results of the comparisons between people with and without patellofemoral pain on balance assessment (Q1)

Analysis	n PFP/Control	SMD (95% CI)	p value	I² (%)	Level of Evidence	Egger’s test (p value)
AP direction (19 studies)	448/407	1.03 (0.40–1.66)	0.001	86	Very Low	0.018
Trim-and-fill analysis (2 imputed studies)		0.64 (− 0.23–1.52)	0.151	89	Low	0.746
Removing outliers (2 deleted studies)		0.65 (0.30–0.99)	< 0.001	77	Moderate	0.460
ML direction (13 studies)	261/279	0.87 (0.31–1.42)	0.002	85	Moderate	0.059
Trim-and-fill analysis (1 imputed study)		0.70 (0.23–1.37)	0.043	87	Moderate	0.641
Removing outliers (1 deleted study)		0.69 (0.23–1.16)	< 0.001	77	Moderate	0.292
Overall balance (15 studies)	354/335	0.38 (− 0.05–0.82)	0.083	84	Moderate	0.813
PM direction (SEBT; 4 studies)	151/117	1.22 (− 0.59–3.02)	0.187	86	Moderate	NA
PL direction (SEBT; 4 studies)	151/117	1.06 (− 0.54–2.66)	0.194	86	Moderate	NA
AP CoP velocity (6 studies)	120/139	0.28 (− 0.07–0.64)	0.121	50	Moderate	NA
ML CoP velocity (6 studies)	113/132	0.67 (− 0.20–1.55)	0.130	88	Moderate	NA
Overall CoP velocity (4 studies)	104/104	1.24 (0.33–2.15)	0.007	88	Moderate	NA

AP anteroposterior, CoP centre of pressure, ML mediolateral, NA not applicable, PFP patellofemoral pain, PM posteromedial, PL posterolateral, SEBT Star Excursion Balance Test, SMD standardised mean difference