· Ingrid Halvorsen
What 108 trials measured about balance boards
The question is usually answered in one of two unhelpful ways. Either everything works, or the whole category is a gimmick. The trial data supports neither. It supports a narrow, well-evidenced claim and does not support the claims stacked around it, and the useful thing is to know which is which.
What is proven
That illustrative figure is the reviewers' own, not our arithmetic. It is the clearest way to read a rate ratio, and it is worth sitting with: roughly two hundred fewer falls per thousand people per year, from an intervention with no drug in it.
Falls per 1,000 people followed for one year — balance and functional exercise vs control (rate ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.70–0.81; 39 studies, 7,920 participants; high-certainty evidence)
— Sherrington et al., Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2019
Then there is the finding almost nobody quotes, probably because it sits three tables deep in the review. Among trials of balance and functional training specifically, the number of people who broke something in a fall dropped by 56%.
Fall-related fractures, balance and functional exercise vs control (risk ratio 0.44, 95% CI 0.25–0.76; 7 studies, 2,139 participants) — rated LOW certainty: few events, wide interval
— Sherrington et al., Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2019
We have put the certainty rating in the label deliberately. Fifty-six percent is the kind of number that ends up on a packaging insert with the caveat stripped off. The reviewers downgraded it two levels for imprecision and risk of bias, and seven trials is not many. It is a real signal and a soft one, and both halves of that sentence are load-bearing.
It works whether or not you are already at risk
This matters for anyone under sixty reading a page full of geriatric research and wondering whether it applies. The subgroup analysis found no evidence of a difference in effect on either falls outcome according to whether trials selected participants at increased risk of falling. The reviewers also noted, in their implications for practice, that the absolute impact is larger in people already at risk — a smaller slice of a bigger number — while the relative effect held across the board.
What is promising but not settled
Chronic ankle instability — the ankle that keeps rolling months after the original sprain — has its own evidence base, and it is younger and thinner. A 2024 systematic review pooled nine randomised trials and 341 patients. Balance training beat no treatment clearly. Against strength training it was equivalent on dynamic stability and ahead on the functional scales, meaning how the ankle behaves in daily life rather than on a test.
Patients across 9 randomised trials of balance training in chronic ankle instability; FAAM Sports improved by 17.74 points vs control (95% CI 14.36–21.11)
— Guo et al., Systematic Reviews, 2024
Nine trials and 341 patients is a fraction of the falls evidence. Treat it as a good reason to try, under supervision if the joint is still unreliable, rather than a guarantee. Our ankle board page covers the equipment side; the starting point should come from whoever examined the ankle.
What is not shown
| Claim | Evidence quality | What we can say |
|---|---|---|
| Reduces falls | High certainty, 39 trials | Proven for balance and functional exercise |
| Reduces fall-related fractures | Low certainty, 7 trials | Promising, imprecise |
| Helps chronic ankle instability | 9 trials, 341 patients | Promising, small evidence base |
| Builds core strength | No comparable evidence | Unproven at this standard |
| Corrects posture | No comparable evidence | Unproven at this standard |
| Aids weight loss | No comparable evidence | Unproven at this standard |
Falls and fracture rows: Sherrington et al., Cochrane, 2019. Ankle row: Guo et al., Systematic Reviews, 2024. The last three rows record an absence of evidence at this standard, not a demonstrated absence of effect.
The comparison that makes the case
One result does more to justify the category than any of the above. In the same review, using the same method, programmes that were primarily resistance training came out at a rate ratio of 1.14 with an interval from 0.67 to 1.97 — no demonstrated benefit on falls, and an interval wide enough to include an increase.
Strength is worth training for a dozen other reasons. But on this outcome it is the balance component that carries the effect, which is the whole argument for spending ten minutes on a wobbling surface rather than assuming squats cover it. We set out the progression in balance board exercises, and the risk side in the downsides of using a balance board.
Does the board matter, or just the wobble?
Fairly: the trials tested balance training, not balance boards. Plenty of the programmes used no equipment at all. A board is a convenient way to make the task harder in a small space and to keep progressing once one-leg standing on the floor has become easy — it is not the active ingredient, and anybody selling it as one is overreaching.
Which shape suits you is a separate question, covered in balance board or wobble board and in our wobble board page. If you are choosing, our comparison sets out criteria before products, and how we test says what we actually check. Older beginners should start at balance exercises for seniors, and there is a separate guide for children.
Sources: Sherrington C, Fairhall NJ, Wallbank GK, Tiedemann A, Michaleff ZA, Howard K, Clemson L, Hopewell S, Lamb SE. Exercise for preventing falls in older people living in the community. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 31 January 2019 · Guo Y, Cheng T, Yang Z, Huang Y, Li M, Wang T. A systematic review and meta-analysis of balance training in patients with chronic ankle instability. Systematic Reviews, 2024. Last reviewed 15 September 2026.