BACKGROUND: Understanding sex and gender differences in standing balance is challenged by varied use of terminology and definitions. In addition, the use of sex- and gender-based analyses (SGBA) in standing balance research is unknown. This scoping review examined the frequency and type of SGBA, and the use of sex- and gender-based terminology in standing balance research published in the year 2020. METHODS: Eight databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles that quantitatively measured standing balance in adult humans using a biomechanical construct and were published in 2020. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and extracted data with a third reviewer resolving conflicts. In accordance with sex and gender equity in research (SAGER) guidelines, data extraction focused on participant demographics, inclusion and type of SGBA, consistency of sex and gender terminology, alignment with operational definitions (e.g., female used to describe sex), and sex and gender data collection methods. Absolute and relative values across all articles and within collaboratively created categories of participant groups were calculated. RESULTS: Of the 366 articles in the analysis, 20 % included sex and/or gender in the statistical analyses of which 50 % conducted SGBA. Consistent terminology aligned with this study's definitions of sex and gender was found in 12 % of all articles, whereas 40 % used labels consistently without assigning them to sex or gender, ∼20 % used inconsistent or unaligned terminology, and 7 % did not report sex or gender. No articles included more than two options for sex or gender, and very few included self-reporting by participants (3 % for sex, 1 % for gender) or clearly described how sex (3 %) or gender (1 %) data were collected. CONCLUSIONS: Small changes to the collection and reporting of sex and gender, and more SGBA in standing balance research could drastically improve the inclusivity and accuracy of standing balance assessment in research and clinical settings.