Postural ControlNCT07812103
Water-Inertia-Based Dynamic Stability Training for Balance and Postural Control in Healthy Young Women
A study testing Water-Inertia-Based Dynamic Stability Training and Stable-Load Dynamic Stability Training in people with Postural Control and Dynamic Stability, run by Yuanyan Huang at 1 site in South Korea.
Trial summary
This randomized controlled study evaluated the effects of a 10-week dynamic stability training program using a mobile water load compared with a mass-matched stable load in healthy young women. Thirty participants were randomly assigned to either water-inertia-based unstable-load training or stable-load training. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 19 to 25 years, women onlyHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Postural Control, Dynamic Stability
- What is being tested?
- Water-Inertia-Based Dynamic Stability Training and Stable-Load Dynamic Stability Training
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 30 participants
- Where
- 1 siteSouth Korea
- Study dates
- 5 Jul 2024to 20 Sep 2024
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 19 to 25 years
- Women only
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Female undergraduate students aged 19 to 25 years.
- Generally healthy at the time of enrollment.
- No surgery within the previous 6 months.
- No congenital, neurological, vestibular, or musculoskeletal disorder affecting the foot, pelvis, or spine.
- No participation in resistance training during the previous 12 months. Able and willing to participate in the 10-week supervised exercise intervention and study assessments.
- Provided written informed consent to participate.
Who cannot join
- Did not meet any of the inclusion criteria.
- Participated in resistance training or functional training outside the study intervention during the 10-week study period.
- Developed a health condition, injury, or other circumstance during the study that prevented safe participation in the prescribed exercise program or outcome assessments.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Effects of Water-Inertia-Based Dynamic Stability Training on Dynamic Balance and Single-Leg Postural Control in Healthy Young Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial
This randomized controlled study evaluated the effects of a 10-week dynamic stability training program using a mobile water load compared with a mass-matched stable load in healthy young women. Thirty participants were randomly assigned to either water-inertia-based unstable-load training or stable-load training. Both groups completed the same supervised exercises three times per week, using vests with the same total external mass; the main difference between groups was whether the load inside the vest was mobile or stable. Outcomes were assessed before training, after 5 weeks, and after 10 weeks. The study evaluated dynamic balance, postural sway during single-leg stance, and other physical-performance outcomes to determine whether mobile water loading produced different training adaptations from stable loading.
Read the detailed description
This study was designed to examine whether dynamic stability training performed with a mobile water-based external load produces different physical and postural adaptations from the same training performed with a mass-matched stable external load in healthy young women. The study used a randomized, parallel-group design.
Healthy female university students aged 19-25 years who had not participated in resistance training during the previous 12 months were recruited. After baseline assessment, 30 eligible participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to an unstable-load training group or a stable-load training group.
Both groups completed the same supervised dynamic stability training program three times per week for 10 weeks, for a total of 30 training sessions. Each session lasted approximately 50 minutes. The exercise content, training frequency, session duration, set-repetition structure, rest intervals, vest mass, and any additional prescribed exercise loads were matched between groups. During the main training block, participants completed three sets of each exercise, with 12 repetitions per set during weeks 1-5 and 15 repetitions per set during weeks 6-10.
The unstable-load group trained while wearing an Aqua Vest containing a total external load of 5 kg, consisting of approximately 4 kg of water and a 1-kg vest. Because the water pouches were partially filled, the internal water could move during exercise and change the distribution of the external load. The stable-load group wore a mass-matched weighted vest containing approximately 4 kg of steel rods and a 1-kg vest. The steel rods were arranged to approximate the spatial distribution of the water pouches. Thus, the primary experimental difference between groups was the mobility of the external load rather than total vest mass or prescribed exercise content.
Assessments were conducted at baseline, after 5 weeks of training, and after 10 weeks of training. Dynamic postural control was evaluated using the Y-Balance Test. Participants completed reaching tasks in the anterior, posteromedial, and posterolateral directions while standing on one limb. The maximum valid reach distance in each direction was retained and normalized to limb length, and a composite score was also calculated.
Postural sway was evaluated during single-leg stance using force-platform-derived center-of-pressure measures under eyes-open and eyes-closed conditions. Eyes-open trials lasted 30 seconds and eyes-closed trials lasted 20 seconds. Center-of-pressure outcomes included total path distance and direction-specific root-mean-square displacement in the anteroposterior and mediolateral directions.
The broader study protocol also included lower-extremity physical-performance assessments. The registration record is intended to describe the original study protocol and design; individual publications arising from the study may focus on specific subsets of the collected outcomes.
The purpose of the comparison was to determine whether introducing load mobility through a water-filled vest, while keeping the prescribed exercise program and external mass closely matched, resulted in different adaptations from training with a stable weighted vest.
- Conditions
- Postural Control, Dynamic Stability
- Being tested
- Water-Inertia-Based Dynamic Stability Training, Stable-Load Dynamic Stability Training
- Keywords
- water-inertia loading, unstable-load training, healthy young women, dynamic stability training, dynamic balance, postural control, Y-Balance Test, center of pressure, single-leg stance
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Water-Inertia-Based Dynamic Stability TrainingBehavioural
Also called Unstable-Load Training (ULT), Aqua Vest Training
Participants completed a supervised dynamic stability training program three times per week for 10 weeks (30 sessions), with each session lasting approximately 50 minutes. During training, participants wore a vest providing a total external load of 5 kg, consisting of approximately 4 kg of water in partially filled pouches and a 1-kg vest. Internal water movement allowed the external load distribution to change during exercise. Exercises were performed for three sets, with 12 repetitions per set during weeks 1-5 and 15 repetitions per set during weeks 6-10, with 30 seconds of rest between sets. Exercise content and any additional prescribed implement loads were matched to the stable-load intervention.
Stable-Load Dynamic Stability TrainingBehavioural
Also called Stable-Load Training (SLT), Weighted Vest Training
Participants completed the same supervised dynamic stability training program three times per week for 10 weeks (30 sessions), with each session lasting approximately 50 minutes. During training, participants wore a stable weighted vest providing a total external load of 5 kg, consisting of approximately 4 kg of steel rods and a 1-kg vest. The steel rods were arranged to approximate the spatial loading configuration of the water pouches used in the water-inertia intervention. Exercises were performed for three sets, with 12 repetitions per set during weeks 1-5 and 15 repetitions per set during weeks 6-10, with 30 seconds of rest between sets. Exercise content and any additional prescribed implement loads were matched between groups.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Water-Inertia-Based Unstable-Load Training | Experimental | Participants assigned to this arm completed a supervised 10-week dynamic stability training program three times per week while wearing an Aqua Vest with a total external load of 5 kg, consisting of approximately 4 kg of water and a 1-kg vest. The partially filled water pouches allowed internal water movement during exercise, creating a mobile external load. Exercise content, session duration, set-repetition structure, rest intervals, and any additional prescribed exercise loads were matched to the stable-load training arm. Receives: Behavioral: Water-Inertia-Based Dynamic Stability Training |
| Stable-Load Training | Active comparator | Participants assigned to this arm completed the same supervised 10-week dynamic stability training program three times per week while wearing a mass-matched stable weighted vest with a total external load of 5 kg, consisting of approximately 4 kg of steel rods and a 1-kg vest. The steel rods were arranged to approximate the spatial loading configuration of the water pouches. Exercise content, session duration, set-repetition structure, rest intervals, and any additional prescribed exercise loads were matched to the unstable-load training arm. Receives: Behavioral: Stable-Load Dynamic Stability Training |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Normalized Anterior Reach Distance on the Y-Balance Test
Dynamic postural control was assessed using the lower-quarter Y-Balance Test. Participants performed three valid anterior reach trials while maintaining single-leg stance. The maximum reach distance was retained and normalized to the corresponding limb length: normalized reach distance (%) = maximum reach distance / limb length × 100. Higher values indicate greater normalized reach performance.
Measured: Baseline, Week 5, and Week 10
Normalized Posteromedial Reach Distance on the Y-Balance Test
Participants performed three valid posteromedial reach trials during the lower-quarter Y-Balance Test. The maximum reach distance was retained and normalized to the corresponding limb length: normalized reach distance (%) = maximum reach distance / limb length × 100. Higher values indicate greater normalized reach performance.
Measured: Baseline, Week 5, and Week 10
Normalized Posterolateral Reach Distance on the Y-Balance Test
Participants performed three valid posterolateral reach trials during the lower-quarter Y-Balance Test. The maximum reach distance was retained and normalized to the corresponding limb length: normalized reach distance (%) = maximum reach distance / limb length × 100. Higher values indicate greater normalized reach performance.
Measured: Baseline, Week 5, and Week 10
Y-Balance Test Composite Score
The composite score was calculated from the maximum valid anterior, posteromedial, and posterolateral reach distances normalized to limb length: composite score (%) = (maximum anterior + maximum posteromedial + maximum posterolateral reach distance) / (3 × limb length) × 100. Higher values indicate greater overall Y-Balance Test performance.
Measured: Baseline, Week 5, and Week 10
Center-of-Pressure Total Distance During Eyes-Open Single-Leg Stance
Postural sway was assessed using a force platform during 30-second eyes-open single-leg stance. Total CoP distance (cm) represented the cumulative path length of the center-of-pressure trajectory during each valid trial. Three trial-specific values were averaged for analysis. Lower values represent a shorter CoP trajectory during the test condition.
Measured: Baseline, Week 5, and Week 10
Anteroposterior CoP RMS During Eyes-Open Single-Leg Stance
Anteroposterior root-mean-square (AP RMS) displacement of the center of pressure was calculated during 30-second eyes-open single-leg stance and expressed in centimeters. AP RMS represents the dispersion of CoP displacement about its mean position in the anteroposterior direction. Three trial-specific values were averaged for analysis.
Measured: Baseline, Week 5, and Week 10
Mediolateral CoP RMS During Eyes-Open Single-Leg Stance
Mediolateral root-mean-square (ML RMS) displacement of the center of pressure was calculated during 30-second eyes-open single-leg stance and expressed in centimeters. ML RMS represents the dispersion of CoP displacement about its mean position in the mediolateral direction. Three trial-specific values were averaged for analysis.
Measured: Baseline, Week 5, and Week 10
Center-of-Pressure Total Distance During Eyes-Closed Single-Leg Stance
Postural sway was assessed using a force platform during 20-second eyes-closed single-leg stance. Total CoP distance (cm) represented the cumulative path length of the center-of-pressure trajectory during each valid trial. Three trial-specific values were averaged for analysis. Lower values represent a shorter CoP trajectory during the test condition.
Measured: Baseline, Week 5, and Week 10
Anteroposterior CoP RMS During Eyes-Closed Single-Leg Stance
Anteroposterior root-mean-square (AP RMS) displacement of the center of pressure was calculated during 20-second eyes-closed single-leg stance and expressed in centimeters. AP RMS represents the dispersion of CoP displacement about its mean position in the anteroposterior direction. Three trial-specific values were averaged for analysis.
Measured: Baseline, Week 5, and Week 10
Mediolateral CoP RMS During Eyes-Closed Single-Leg Stance
Mediolateral root-mean-square (ML RMS) displacement of the center of pressure was calculated during 20-second eyes-closed single-leg stance and expressed in centimeters. ML RMS represents the dispersion of CoP displacement about its mean position in the mediolateral direction. Three trial-specific values were averaged for analysis.
Measured: Baseline, Week 5, and Week 10
Knee Extension Peak Torque Relative to Body Weight at 60°/s
Concentric knee extension strength was assessed using an isokinetic dynamometer at an angular velocity of 60°/s. Peak torque was normalized to body weight and expressed as a percentage of body weight (PT/BW, %). Higher values indicate greater knee extensor torque relative to body weight.
Measured: Baseline, Week 5, and Week 10
Knee Flexion Peak Torque Relative to Body Weight at 60°/s
Concentric knee flexion strength was assessed using an isokinetic dynamometer at an angular velocity of 60°/s. Peak torque was normalized to body weight and expressed as a percentage of body weight (PT/BW, %). Higher values indicate greater knee flexor torque relative to body weight.
Measured: Baseline, Week 5, and Week 10
Ankle Inversion Peak Torque Relative to Body Weight at 60°/s
Concentric ankle inversion strength was assessed using an isokinetic dynamometer at an angular velocity of 60°/s. Peak torque was normalized to body weight and expressed as a percentage of body weight (PT/BW, %). Higher values indicate greater inversion torque relative to body weight.
Measured: Baseline, Week 5, and Week 10
Ankle Eversion Peak Torque Relative to Body Weight at 60°/s
Concentric ankle eversion strength was assessed using an isokinetic dynamometer at an angular velocity of 60°/s. Peak torque was normalized to body weight and expressed as a percentage of body weight (PT/BW, %). Higher values indicate greater eversion torque relative to body weight.
Measured: Baseline, Week 5, and Week 10
Ankle Inversion Peak Torque Relative to Body Weight at 120°/s
Concentric ankle inversion strength was assessed using an isokinetic dynamometer at an angular velocity of 120°/s. Peak torque was normalized to body weight and expressed as a percentage of body weight (PT/BW, %). Higher values indicate greater inversion torque relative to body weight.
Measured: Baseline, Week 5, and Week 10
Ankle Eversion Peak Torque Relative to Body Weight at 120°/s
Concentric ankle eversion strength was assessed using an isokinetic dynamometer at an angular velocity of 120°/s. Peak torque was normalized to body weight and expressed as a percentage of body weight (PT/BW, %). Higher values indicate greater eversion torque relative to body weight.
Measured: Baseline, Week 5, and Week 10
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted10 Sep 2026
- Study start5 Jul 2024
- Primary completion20 Sep 2024
- Study completion20 Sep 2024
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Postural ControlStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Yuanyan Huang
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor-investigator, Yuanyan Huang, Busan University of Foreign Studies
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07812103
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 2024-0666-001
- Other IDs
- P01-202407-01-004
- Status last verified
- Sep 2026
- First submitted
- 4 Sep 2026
- Last updated
- 14 Sep 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: De-identified individual participant data that support the findings of the study may be shared with qualified researchers upon reasonable request, subject to applicable ethical and data-protection requirements.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 14 Sep 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Effects of Water-Inertia-Based Dynamic Stability Training on Dynamic Balance and Single-Leg Postural Control in Healthy Young Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07812103
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2024-0666-001
- Conditions
- Postural Control, Dynamic Stability
- Keywords
- water-inertia loading, unstable-load training, healthy young women, dynamic stability training, dynamic balance, postural control, Y-Balance Test, center of pressure
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Yuanyan HuangUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 5 Jul 2024 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 20 Sep 2024 (actual)
- Study completion
- 20 Sep 2024 (actual)
- First posted
- 10 Sep 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This randomized controlled study evaluated the effects of a 10-week dynamic stability training program using a mobile water load compared with a mass-matched stable load in healthy young women. Thirty participants were randomly assigned to either water-inertia-based unstable-load training or stable-load training. Both groups completed the same supervised exercises three times per week, using vests with the same total external mass; the main difference between groups was whether the load inside the vest was mobile or stable. Outcomes were assessed before training, after 5 weeks, and after 10 weeks. The study evaluated dynamic balance, postural sway during single-leg stance, and other physical-performance outcomes to determine whether mobile water loading produced different training adaptations from stable loading.
Detailed description
This study was designed to examine whether dynamic stability training performed with a mobile water-based external load produces different physical and postural adaptations from the same training performed with a mass-matched stable external load in healthy young women. The study used a randomized, parallel-group design.
Healthy female university students aged 19-25 years who had not participated in resistance training during the previous 12 months were recruited. After baseline assessment, 30 eligible participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to an unstable-load training group or a stable-load training group.
Both groups completed the same supervised dynamic stability training program three times per week for 10 weeks, for a total of 30 training sessions. Each session lasted approximately 50 minutes. The exercise content, training frequency, session duration, set-repetition structure, rest intervals, vest mass, and any additional prescribed exercise loads were matched between groups. During the main training block, participants completed three sets of each exercise, with 12 repetitions per set during weeks 1-5 and 15 repetitions per set during weeks 6-10.
The unstable-load group trained while wearing an Aqua Vest containing a total external load of 5 kg, consisting of approximately 4 kg of water and a 1-kg vest. Because the water pouches were partially filled, the internal water could move during exercise and change the distribution of the external load. The stable-load group wore a mass-matched weighted vest containing approximately 4 kg of steel rods and a 1-kg vest. The steel rods were arranged to approximate the spatial distribution of the water pouches. Thus, the primary experimental difference between groups was the mobility of the external load rather than total vest mass or prescribed exercise content.
Assessments were conducted at baseline, after 5 weeks of training, and after 10 weeks of training. Dynamic postural control was evaluated using the Y-Balance Test. Participants completed reaching tasks in the anterior, posteromedial, and posterolateral directions while standing on one limb. The maximum valid reach distance in each direction was retained and normalized to limb length, and a composite score was also calculated.
Postural sway was evaluated during single-leg stance using force-platform-derived center-of-pressure measures under eyes-open and eyes-closed conditions. Eyes-open trials lasted 30 seconds and eyes-closed trials lasted 20 seconds. Center-of-pressure outcomes included total path distance and direction-specific root-mean-square displacement in the anteroposterior and mediolateral directions.
The broader study protocol also included lower-extremity physical-performance assessments. The registration record is intended to describe the original study protocol and design; individual publications arising from the study may focus on specific subsets of the collected outcomes.
The purpose of the comparison was to determine whether introducing load mobility through a water-filled vest, while keeping the prescribed exercise program and external mass closely matched, resulted in different adaptations from training with a stable weighted vest.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Other
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Water-Inertia-Based Unstable-Load Training | Experimental | Behavioral: Water-Inertia-Based Dynamic Stability TrainingParticipants assigned to this arm completed a supervised 10-week dynamic stability training program three times per week while wearing an Aqua Vest with a total external load of 5 kg, consisting of approximately 4 kg of water and a 1-kg vest. The partially filled water pouches allowed internal water movement during exercise, creating a mobile external load. Exercise content, session duration, set-repetition structure, rest intervals, and any additional prescribed exercise loads were matched to the stable-load training arm. |
| Stable-Load Training | Active comparator | Behavioral: Stable-Load Dynamic Stability TrainingParticipants assigned to this arm completed the same supervised 10-week dynamic stability training program three times per week while wearing a mass-matched stable weighted vest with a total external load of 5 kg, consisting of approximately 4 kg of steel rods and a 1-kg vest. The steel rods were arranged to approximate the spatial loading configuration of the water pouches. Exercise content, session duration, set-repetition structure, rest intervals, and any additional prescribed exercise loads were matched to the unstable-load training arm. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 19 to 25 years
- Sex
- Female only
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Female undergraduate students aged 19 to 25 years.
- Generally healthy at the time of enrollment.
- No surgery within the previous 6 months.
- No congenital, neurological, vestibular, or musculoskeletal disorder affecting the foot, pelvis, or spine.
- No participation in resistance training during the previous 12 months. Able and willing to participate in the 10-week supervised exercise intervention and study assessments.
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Did not meet any of the inclusion criteria.
- Participated in resistance training or functional training outside the study intervention during the 10-week study period.
- Developed a health condition, injury, or other circumstance during the study that prevented safe participation in the prescribed exercise program or outcome assessments.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Water-Inertia-Based Dynamic Stability TrainingAlso: Unstable-Load Training (ULT), Aqua Vest TrainingParticipants completed a supervised dynamic stability training program three times per week for 10 weeks (30 sessions), with each session lasting approximately 50 minutes. During training, participants wore a vest providing a total external load of 5 kg, consisting of approximately 4 kg of water in partially filled pouches and a 1-kg vest. Internal water movement allowed the external load distribution to change during exercise. Exercises were performed for three sets, with 12 repetitions per set during weeks 1-5 and 15 repetitions per set during weeks 6-10, with 30 seconds of rest between sets. Exercise content and any additional prescribed implement loads were matched to the stable-load intervention. | Behavioural | Water-Inertia-Based Unstable-Load Training |
| Stable-Load Dynamic Stability TrainingAlso: Stable-Load Training (SLT), Weighted Vest TrainingParticipants completed the same supervised dynamic stability training program three times per week for 10 weeks (30 sessions), with each session lasting approximately 50 minutes. During training, participants wore a stable weighted vest providing a total external load of 5 kg, consisting of approximately 4 kg of steel rods and a 1-kg vest. The steel rods were arranged to approximate the spatial loading configuration of the water pouches used in the water-inertia intervention. Exercises were performed for three sets, with 12 repetitions per set during weeks 1-5 and 15 repetitions per set during weeks 6-10, with 30 seconds of rest between sets. Exercise content and any additional prescribed implement loads were matched between groups. | Behavioural | Stable-Load Training |
Primary outcome
Normalized Anterior Reach Distance on the Y-Balance Test
Time frame: Baseline, Week 5, and Week 10
Dynamic postural control was assessed using the lower-quarter Y-Balance Test. Participants performed three valid anterior reach trials while maintaining single-leg stance. The maximum reach distance was retained and normalized to the corresponding limb length: normalized reach distance (%) = maximum reach distance / limb length × 100. Higher values indicate greater normalized reach performance.
Normalized Posteromedial Reach Distance on the Y-Balance Test
Time frame: Baseline, Week 5, and Week 10
Participants performed three valid posteromedial reach trials during the lower-quarter Y-Balance Test. The maximum reach distance was retained and normalized to the corresponding limb length: normalized reach distance (%) = maximum reach distance / limb length × 100. Higher values indicate greater normalized reach performance.
Normalized Posterolateral Reach Distance on the Y-Balance Test
Time frame: Baseline, Week 5, and Week 10
Participants performed three valid posterolateral reach trials during the lower-quarter Y-Balance Test. The maximum reach distance was retained and normalized to the corresponding limb length: normalized reach distance (%) = maximum reach distance / limb length × 100. Higher values indicate greater normalized reach performance.
Y-Balance Test Composite Score
Time frame: Baseline, Week 5, and Week 10
The composite score was calculated from the maximum valid anterior, posteromedial, and posterolateral reach distances normalized to limb length: composite score (%) = (maximum anterior + maximum posteromedial + maximum posterolateral reach distance) / (3 × limb length) × 100. Higher values indicate greater overall Y-Balance Test performance.
Center-of-Pressure Total Distance During Eyes-Open Single-Leg Stance
Time frame: Baseline, Week 5, and Week 10
Postural sway was assessed using a force platform during 30-second eyes-open single-leg stance. Total CoP distance (cm) represented the cumulative path length of the center-of-pressure trajectory during each valid trial. Three trial-specific values were averaged for analysis. Lower values represent a shorter CoP trajectory during the test condition.
Anteroposterior CoP RMS During Eyes-Open Single-Leg Stance
Time frame: Baseline, Week 5, and Week 10
Anteroposterior root-mean-square (AP RMS) displacement of the center of pressure was calculated during 30-second eyes-open single-leg stance and expressed in centimeters. AP RMS represents the dispersion of CoP displacement about its mean position in the anteroposterior direction. Three trial-specific values were averaged for analysis.
Mediolateral CoP RMS During Eyes-Open Single-Leg Stance
Time frame: Baseline, Week 5, and Week 10
Mediolateral root-mean-square (ML RMS) displacement of the center of pressure was calculated during 30-second eyes-open single-leg stance and expressed in centimeters. ML RMS represents the dispersion of CoP displacement about its mean position in the mediolateral direction. Three trial-specific values were averaged for analysis.
Center-of-Pressure Total Distance During Eyes-Closed Single-Leg Stance
Time frame: Baseline, Week 5, and Week 10
Postural sway was assessed using a force platform during 20-second eyes-closed single-leg stance. Total CoP distance (cm) represented the cumulative path length of the center-of-pressure trajectory during each valid trial. Three trial-specific values were averaged for analysis. Lower values represent a shorter CoP trajectory during the test condition.
Anteroposterior CoP RMS During Eyes-Closed Single-Leg Stance
Time frame: Baseline, Week 5, and Week 10
Anteroposterior root-mean-square (AP RMS) displacement of the center of pressure was calculated during 20-second eyes-closed single-leg stance and expressed in centimeters. AP RMS represents the dispersion of CoP displacement about its mean position in the anteroposterior direction. Three trial-specific values were averaged for analysis.
Mediolateral CoP RMS During Eyes-Closed Single-Leg Stance
Time frame: Baseline, Week 5, and Week 10
Mediolateral root-mean-square (ML RMS) displacement of the center of pressure was calculated during 20-second eyes-closed single-leg stance and expressed in centimeters. ML RMS represents the dispersion of CoP displacement about its mean position in the mediolateral direction. Three trial-specific values were averaged for analysis.
Knee Extension Peak Torque Relative to Body Weight at 60°/s
Time frame: Baseline, Week 5, and Week 10
Concentric knee extension strength was assessed using an isokinetic dynamometer at an angular velocity of 60°/s. Peak torque was normalized to body weight and expressed as a percentage of body weight (PT/BW, %). Higher values indicate greater knee extensor torque relative to body weight.
Knee Flexion Peak Torque Relative to Body Weight at 60°/s
Time frame: Baseline, Week 5, and Week 10
Concentric knee flexion strength was assessed using an isokinetic dynamometer at an angular velocity of 60°/s. Peak torque was normalized to body weight and expressed as a percentage of body weight (PT/BW, %). Higher values indicate greater knee flexor torque relative to body weight.
Ankle Inversion Peak Torque Relative to Body Weight at 60°/s
Time frame: Baseline, Week 5, and Week 10
Concentric ankle inversion strength was assessed using an isokinetic dynamometer at an angular velocity of 60°/s. Peak torque was normalized to body weight and expressed as a percentage of body weight (PT/BW, %). Higher values indicate greater inversion torque relative to body weight.
Ankle Eversion Peak Torque Relative to Body Weight at 60°/s
Time frame: Baseline, Week 5, and Week 10
Concentric ankle eversion strength was assessed using an isokinetic dynamometer at an angular velocity of 60°/s. Peak torque was normalized to body weight and expressed as a percentage of body weight (PT/BW, %). Higher values indicate greater eversion torque relative to body weight.
Ankle Inversion Peak Torque Relative to Body Weight at 120°/s
Time frame: Baseline, Week 5, and Week 10
Concentric ankle inversion strength was assessed using an isokinetic dynamometer at an angular velocity of 120°/s. Peak torque was normalized to body weight and expressed as a percentage of body weight (PT/BW, %). Higher values indicate greater inversion torque relative to body weight.
Ankle Eversion Peak Torque Relative to Body Weight at 120°/s
Time frame: Baseline, Week 5, and Week 10
Concentric ankle eversion strength was assessed using an isokinetic dynamometer at an angular velocity of 120°/s. Peak torque was normalized to body weight and expressed as a percentage of body weight (PT/BW, %). Higher values indicate greater eversion torque relative to body weight.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 14 Sep 2026.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. De-identified individual participant data that support the findings of the study may be shared with qualified researchers upon reasonable request, subject to applicable ethical and data-protection requirements.
Related trials for Postural Control
Not yet recruiting
Combined Versus Multicomponent Training in People With Chronic Kidney Disease Stages 3a and 3b
Chronic Kidney Disease Stage 3A, Chronic Kidney Disease Stage 3B
Recruiting
Strength and Dual-Task on Sarcopenia in People With Parkinson's Disease
PARKINSON DISEASE (Disorder), Parkinsonism or Parkinson's Disease Nos
Not yet recruiting
"CORE Training for Musculoskeletal Health: A Study on Adaptive Exercise Protocols"
Core Muscle Weakness, Postural Control Deficit
Recruiting
Ultrasound Guided Stellate Ganglion Block in Postural Tachycardia Syndrome
Postural Tachycardia Syndrome
Not yet recruiting
Cerebello-Cortical Connectivity and Balance Adaptation in Younger and Older Adults
Aging, Postural Balance
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Water-Inertia-Based Dynamic Stability Training and Stable-Load Dynamic Stability Training in people with Postural Control and Dynamic Stability, run by Yuanyan Huang at 1 site in South Korea.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 14 Sep 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in South Korea. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Normalized Anterior Reach Distance on the Y-Balance Test (time frame: Baseline, Week 5, and Week 10). The study lists 16 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 14 Sep 2026.