Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test and its two abbreviated versions in persons with mild to moderate spinocerebellar ataxia: A pilot study.
Minimal detectable change
Spinocerebellar ataxias
neurological rehabilitation
postural balance
rare diseases
reproducibility of results
Journal
NeuroRehabilitation
ISSN: 1878-6448
Titre abrégé: NeuroRehabilitation
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9113791
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
pubmed:
3
11
2020
medline:
24
3
2021
entrez:
2
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The reliability of the evaluation of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) and its two abbreviated versions are confirmed for balance characteristics and reliability. However, they are not utilized in cases of spinocerebellar ataxia (SCA). We aimed to examine the test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change (MDC) of the BESTest and its abbreviated versions in persons with mild to moderate spinocerebellar ataxia. The BESTest was performed in 20 persons with SCA at baseline and one month later. The scores of the abbreviated version of the BESTest were determined from the BESTest scores. The interclass correlation coefficient (1,1) was used as a measure of relative reliability. Furthermore, we calculated the MDC in the BESTest and its abbreviated versions. The intraclass correlation coefficients (1,1) and MDC at 95% confidence intervals were 0.92, 8.7(8.1%), 0.91, 4.1(14.5%), and 0.81, 5.2(21.6%) for the Balance, Mini-Balance, and Brief-Balance Evaluation Systems Tests, respectively. The BESTest and its abbreviated versions had high test-retest reliability. The MDC values of the BESTest could enable clinicians and researchers to interpret changes in the balance of patients with SCA more precisely.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The reliability of the evaluation of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) and its two abbreviated versions are confirmed for balance characteristics and reliability. However, they are not utilized in cases of spinocerebellar ataxia (SCA).
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to examine the test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change (MDC) of the BESTest and its abbreviated versions in persons with mild to moderate spinocerebellar ataxia.
METHODS
METHODS
The BESTest was performed in 20 persons with SCA at baseline and one month later. The scores of the abbreviated version of the BESTest were determined from the BESTest scores. The interclass correlation coefficient (1,1) was used as a measure of relative reliability. Furthermore, we calculated the MDC in the BESTest and its abbreviated versions.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The intraclass correlation coefficients (1,1) and MDC at 95% confidence intervals were 0.92, 8.7(8.1%), 0.91, 4.1(14.5%), and 0.81, 5.2(21.6%) for the Balance, Mini-Balance, and Brief-Balance Evaluation Systems Tests, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The BESTest and its abbreviated versions had high test-retest reliability. The MDC values of the BESTest could enable clinicians and researchers to interpret changes in the balance of patients with SCA more precisely.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33136076
pii: NRE203154
doi: 10.3233/NRE-203154
pmc: PMC7836065
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
479-486Références
Neurology. 2009 Dec 1;73(22):1823-30
pubmed: 19864636
Phys Ther. 2013 Feb;93(2):158-67
pubmed: 23023812
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
Cerebellum. 2009 Mar;8(1):46-51
pubmed: 18855094
Mov Disord. 2010 Oct 15;25(13):2239-46
pubmed: 20737551
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Sep;84(9):719-23
pubmed: 16141752
Phys Ther. 2016 Nov;96(11):1807-1815
pubmed: 27081201
J Neurol Sci. 1997 Feb 12;145(2):205-11
pubmed: 9094050
Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1147-1157
pubmed: 29435801
Neurogenetics. 2010 Oct;11(4):409-15
pubmed: 20424877
J Rehabil Med. 2008 Aug;40(8):615-9
pubmed: 19020694
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2012 Jun;26(5):515-22
pubmed: 22140200
J Rehabil Med. 2007 Oct;39(8):585-90
pubmed: 17896048
Phys Ther. 2012 Sep;92(9):1197-207
pubmed: 22677295
J Neurol Phys Ther. 2011 Jun;35(2):90-7
pubmed: 21934364
Physiotherapy. 2018 Mar;104(1):142-148
pubmed: 28888670
Phys Ther. 2013 Apr;93(4):542-50
pubmed: 23174567
Phys Ther. 2009 May;89(5):484-98
pubmed: 19329772
J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2018 Jul/Sep;41(3):173-179
pubmed: 28079632
BMC Neurol. 2014 Dec 12;14:235
pubmed: 25496796
Phys Ther. 2016 Nov;96(11):1799-1806
pubmed: 27231272
Phys Ther. 1994 Aug;74(8):777-88
pubmed: 8047565
J Strength Cond Res. 2005 Feb;19(1):231-40
pubmed: 15705040
Clin Rehabil. 1998 Jun;12(3):187-99
pubmed: 9688034
Neurology. 2011 Sep 13;77(11):1035-41
pubmed: 21832228
J Rehabil Med. 2010 Apr;42(4):323-31
pubmed: 20461334
Int J MS Care. 2018 Sep-Oct;20(5):231-237
pubmed: 30374253
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1999 Jul;67(1):86-9
pubmed: 10369828
Mov Disord. 2005 Apr;20(4):497-500
pubmed: 15645525
Phys Ther. 2013 Aug;93(8):1102-15
pubmed: 23559522