## 3 Results

Table 2: Correlations of all parameters with demographic parameters (age and BMI). Significant \(p\)-values are shown in bold; correlation coefficient rho according to [PERSON] (1996): <0.2: poor (1), 0.2–0.4: weak (2), 0.4–0.6: moderate (3), 0.6–0.8: strong (4) and >0.8: optimal (5). Figure 2: (a) Sagittal sway in correlation with age, (b) elliptical area in correlation with age, (c) elliptical width in correlation with age. The significant \(p\)-value is given in the respective graph. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**BMI (\(\Omega\))**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**BMI (\(\Omega\))**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**BMI (\(\Omega\))**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Conover-12n test after**} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**n = 53**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**n = 30**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**n = 14**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**n = 4**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Bonferroni-Holom Correction**} \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Median**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Min/Max.**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Median**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Min./Max.**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Median**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Min./Max.**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**p-Value**} \\ \hline Forefoot left (\%) & 18.00 & 8.33/33.33 & 19.17 & 5.67/34.00 & 22.5 & 16.67/34.00 & 24.17 & 18.00/34.33 & 1 vs. 3.05 \\  & & & & & & & & 2 vs. 3.05 \\ \hline Forefoot right (\%) & 13.00 & 1.33/32.67 & 16.00 & 3.00/29.33 & 13.84 & 6.67/25.00 & 10.17 & 1.67/19.33 & 0.28 \\ \hline Rearfoot left (\%) & 33.33 & 18.33/50.00 & 33.50 & 18.00/48.00 & 30.67 & 17.67/48.33 & 30.17 & 15.00/46.67 & 0.19 \\ \hline Rearfoot right (\%) & 35.33 & 63.51/67.31 & 31.80 & 40.07/47.67 & 28.67 & 20.67/41.00 & 34.50 & 23.03/43.67 & 0.23 \\ \hline Left foot (\%) & 51.67 & 38.00/74.67 & 52.33 & 31.00/64.00 & 53.84 & 42.67/65.33 & 56.34 & 45.33/46.67 & 0.50 \\ \hline Right foot (\%) & 48.44 & 25.33/62.00 & 47.67 & 36.00/69.00 & 46.17 & 34.67/57.33 & 43.67 & 35.33/54.67 & 0.50 \\ \hline Forefoot (\%) & 31.67 & 21.00/56.33 & 32.50 & 21.67/62.33 & 40.00 & 24.00/52.00 & 36.34 & 20.00/49.33 & 1 vs. 3: 0.03 \\ \hline Rearfoot (\%) & 68.33 & 43.67/79.00 & 67.50 & 37.67/78.33 & 60.00 & 48.00/76.00 & 63.67 & 50.67/80.00 & 1 vs. 3: 0.03 \\ \hline Frontal sway (mm) & 11.33 & 6.67/32.67 & 10.33 & 36.67/17.67 & 10.67 & 5.33/18.67 & 12.00 & 7.00/16.00 & 0.24 \\ \hline Sagittal sway (mm) & 15.67 & 4.00/42.00 & 16.17 & 6.76/36.33 & 19.17 & 8.67/28.67 & 13.50 & 7.00/21.67 & 0.81 \\ \hline Ellipse area (cm\({}^{2}\)) & 1.19 & 0.25/5.55 & 1.09 & 0.22/3.69 & 1.24 & 0.33/3.30 & 1.04 & 0.48/32.00 & 0.50 \\ \hline Ellipse width (cm) & 0.93 & 0.37/2.82 & 0.90 & 0.40/2.02 & 1.01 & 0.43/1.65 & 0.79 & 0.50/1.55 & 0.88 \\ \hline Ellipse height (cm) & 0.40 & 0.21/0.98 & 0.39 & 0.18/0.71 & 0.37 & 0.22/0.81 & 0.42 & 0.30/0.62 & 0.26 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Influence of all parameters on the BMI. Median, minimum and maximum of the parameters surveyed in subjects with different BMI groups (1 = normal) 2 = pre-obese, 3 = obese; 4 = underweight). Since the number of cases was too low, BMI group 4 was not included in the calculations and is, therefore, highlighted in gray. Significant \(p\)-values are shown in bold; n = number of subjects. In Table 3, the influence of the BMI is analyzed in more detail by comparing groups (4-part subdivision according to the WHO definition). However, the group of underweight subjects could not be included in the Kruskal-Wallis test due to there being too few cases (n = 4). For the sake of completeness, the group is listed in the table but grayed-out accordingly. In the area of the left forefoot, a group difference was observed (\(p\leq 0.05\)). In the multiple Conover-Iman comparison with corresponding Bonferroni-Holm correction, significant pairwise comparisons between groups 1 and 3 (\(p\leq 0.05\)) as well as 2 and 3 (\(p\leq 0.05\)) were found.