Reliability of the balance evaluation systems test and trunk control measurement scale in adult spinal deformity.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
09
04
2019
accepted:
07
08
2019
entrez:
27
8
2019
pubmed:
27
8
2019
medline:
7
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To test the reliability of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) and Trunk Control Measurement Scale (TCMS) between sessions and raters in the adult spinal deformity (ASD) population. Up to now evaluation in ASD was mainly based on static radiographic parameters. Recently literature showed that dynamic balance was a better predictor of health-related quality of life than radiographic parameters, stressing the importance of balance assessment. However, to the best of our knowledge, reliability of balance assessment tools has not yet been investigated in the ASD population. Twenty ASD patients participated in this study. Ten patients were included in the test-retest study, including repeated measurements. Ten patients were measured once, simultaneously but independently by three raters. Each participant performed two balance scales, namely the BESTest and the TCMS. Statistical analysis consisted of intra class correlations (ICC) on scale- and subscale level, and kappa scores on item-level. Cronbach's alpha on total scores, standard errors of measurement (SEM), smallest detectable differences and percentages of agreement were also calculated. Bland-altman plots were created to investigate systematic bias. ICC scores between sessions and raters for TCMS (0.76 and 0.88) and BESTest (0.90 and 0.94) total scores were good to excellent. SEM's between sessions and raters were also low for total scores on TCMS (1.66 and 2.35) and BESTest (2.99 and 2.32). However, on subscale- and item-level reliability decreased and ceiling effects were observed. No systematic bias was observed between sessions and raters. BESTest and TCMS showed to be reliable tools to measure balance in ASD on scale-level. However, on subscale- and item-level reliability decreased and ceiling effects were observed. Therefore, the question arises if there is need for an ASD-specific balance scale.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
To test the reliability of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) and Trunk Control Measurement Scale (TCMS) between sessions and raters in the adult spinal deformity (ASD) population.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA
Up to now evaluation in ASD was mainly based on static radiographic parameters. Recently literature showed that dynamic balance was a better predictor of health-related quality of life than radiographic parameters, stressing the importance of balance assessment. However, to the best of our knowledge, reliability of balance assessment tools has not yet been investigated in the ASD population.
METHODS
Twenty ASD patients participated in this study. Ten patients were included in the test-retest study, including repeated measurements. Ten patients were measured once, simultaneously but independently by three raters. Each participant performed two balance scales, namely the BESTest and the TCMS. Statistical analysis consisted of intra class correlations (ICC) on scale- and subscale level, and kappa scores on item-level. Cronbach's alpha on total scores, standard errors of measurement (SEM), smallest detectable differences and percentages of agreement were also calculated. Bland-altman plots were created to investigate systematic bias.
RESULTS
ICC scores between sessions and raters for TCMS (0.76 and 0.88) and BESTest (0.90 and 0.94) total scores were good to excellent. SEM's between sessions and raters were also low for total scores on TCMS (1.66 and 2.35) and BESTest (2.99 and 2.32). However, on subscale- and item-level reliability decreased and ceiling effects were observed. No systematic bias was observed between sessions and raters.
CONCLUSION
BESTest and TCMS showed to be reliable tools to measure balance in ASD on scale-level. However, on subscale- and item-level reliability decreased and ceiling effects were observed. Therefore, the question arises if there is need for an ASD-specific balance scale.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31449540
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221489
pii: PONE-D-19-10149
pmc: PMC6709918
doi:
Banques de données
figshare
['10.6084/m9.figshare.9552950']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0221489Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
Spine J. 2017 Apr;17(4):480-488
pubmed: 27815217
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016 Nov 15;41(22):1701-1708
pubmed: 27831984
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011 Nov;63 Suppl 11:S240-52
pubmed: 22588748
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2012 May 20;37(12):1077-82
pubmed: 22045006
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1991 Feb;14(2):119-32
pubmed: 2019821
Gait Posture. 2017 Sep;57:188-192
pubmed: 28654792
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018 May 1;43(9):637-646
pubmed: 28858190
J Neurosurg Spine. 2016 Mar;24(3):436-46
pubmed: 26565764
Dev Med Child Neurol. 2017 Jul;59(7):706-712
pubmed: 28374541
Physiotherapy. 2018 Mar;104(1):142-148
pubmed: 28888670
Clin Rehabil. 2000 Aug;14(4):402-6
pubmed: 10945424
Res Dev Disabil. 2011 Nov-Dec;32(6):2624-35
pubmed: 21757321
Phys Ther. 2009 May;89(5):484-98
pubmed: 19329772
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 May 1;40(9):642-9
pubmed: 25705962
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Sep 1;38(19):1663-71
pubmed: 23759814
Eur Spine J. 2011 Sep;20 Suppl 5:681-5
pubmed: 21870096
J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2018 Jul/Sep;41(3):173-179
pubmed: 28079632
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1988 Jun;69(6):395-400
pubmed: 3377664
Neurosurgery. 2015 Oct;77 Suppl 4:S75-91
pubmed: 26378361
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017 May 15;42(10):733-739
pubmed: 27617839
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1998 Jan 15;23(2):211-5
pubmed: 9474728
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1995 Jun 15;20(12):1351-8
pubmed: 7676332
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2010 May 4;:
pubmed: 20447889
Neurosurg Focus. 2014 May;36(5):E1
pubmed: 24785474