Standardized tools for assessing balance and mobility in stroke clinical practice guidelines worldwide: A scoping review.
balance
clinical practice guideline
country income
implementation resources
mobility
standardized assessment tools
stroke rehabilitation
Journal
Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences
ISSN: 2673-6861
Titre abrégé: Front Rehabil Sci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 9918227358906676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
29
10
2022
accepted:
16
01
2023
entrez:
10
3
2023
pubmed:
11
3
2023
medline:
11
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Use of standardized tools to assess balance and mobility limitations is a recommended practice in stroke rehabilitation. The extent to which clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for stroke rehabilitation recommend specific tools and provide resources to support their implementation is unknown. To identify and describe standardized, performance-based tools for assessing balance and/or mobility and describe postural control components challenged, the approach used to select tools, and resources provided for clinical implementation, in CPGs for stroke. A scoping review was conducted. We included CPGs with recommendations on the delivery of stroke rehabilitation to address balance and mobility limitations. We searched seven electronic databases and grey literature. Pairs of reviewers reviewed abstracts and full texts in duplicate. We abstracted data about CPGs, standardized assessment tools, the approach for tool selection, and resources. Experts identified postural control components challenged by each tool. Of the 19 CPGs included in the review, 7 (37%) and 12 (63%) were from middle- and high-income countries, respectively. Ten CPGs (53%) recommended or suggested 27 unique tools. Across 10 CPGs, the most commonly cited tools were the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) (90%), 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) (80%), Timed Up and Go Test (80%) and 10-Meter Walk Test (70%). The tool most frequently cited in middle- and high-income countries was the BBS (3/3 CPGs), and 6MWT (7/7 CPGs), respectively. Across 27 tools, the three components of postural control most frequently challenged were underlying motor systems (100%), anticipatory postural control (96%), and dynamic stability (85%). Five CPGs provided information in varying detail on how tools were selected; only 1 CPG provided a level of recommendation. Seven CPGs provided resources to support clinical implementation; one CPG from a middle-income country included a resource available in a CPG from a high-income country. CPGs for stroke rehabilitation do not consistently provide recommendations for standardized tools to assess balance and mobility or resources to facilitate clinical application. Reporting of processes for tool selection and recommendation is inadequate. Review findings can be used to inform global efforts to develop and translate recommendations and resources for using standardized tools to assess balance and mobility post-stroke. https://osf.io/, identifier: 10.17605/OSF.IO/6RBDV.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Use of standardized tools to assess balance and mobility limitations is a recommended practice in stroke rehabilitation. The extent to which clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for stroke rehabilitation recommend specific tools and provide resources to support their implementation is unknown.
Purpose
UNASSIGNED
To identify and describe standardized, performance-based tools for assessing balance and/or mobility and describe postural control components challenged, the approach used to select tools, and resources provided for clinical implementation, in CPGs for stroke.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
A scoping review was conducted. We included CPGs with recommendations on the delivery of stroke rehabilitation to address balance and mobility limitations. We searched seven electronic databases and grey literature. Pairs of reviewers reviewed abstracts and full texts in duplicate. We abstracted data about CPGs, standardized assessment tools, the approach for tool selection, and resources. Experts identified postural control components challenged by each tool.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Of the 19 CPGs included in the review, 7 (37%) and 12 (63%) were from middle- and high-income countries, respectively. Ten CPGs (53%) recommended or suggested 27 unique tools. Across 10 CPGs, the most commonly cited tools were the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) (90%), 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) (80%), Timed Up and Go Test (80%) and 10-Meter Walk Test (70%). The tool most frequently cited in middle- and high-income countries was the BBS (3/3 CPGs), and 6MWT (7/7 CPGs), respectively. Across 27 tools, the three components of postural control most frequently challenged were underlying motor systems (100%), anticipatory postural control (96%), and dynamic stability (85%). Five CPGs provided information in varying detail on how tools were selected; only 1 CPG provided a level of recommendation. Seven CPGs provided resources to support clinical implementation; one CPG from a middle-income country included a resource available in a CPG from a high-income country.
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
CPGs for stroke rehabilitation do not consistently provide recommendations for standardized tools to assess balance and mobility or resources to facilitate clinical application. Reporting of processes for tool selection and recommendation is inadequate. Review findings can be used to inform global efforts to develop and translate recommendations and resources for using standardized tools to assess balance and mobility post-stroke.
Systematic Review Registration
UNASSIGNED
https://osf.io/, identifier: 10.17605/OSF.IO/6RBDV.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36896249
doi: 10.3389/fresc.2023.1084085
pmc: PMC9989207
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
1084085Informations de copyright
© 2023 dos Santos, Fiedler, Badwal, Legasto-Mulvale, Sibley, Olaleye, Diermayr and Salbach.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. NMS is an author of one of the guidelines included in this review.
Références
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Nov 21;17(1):748
pubmed: 29157248
Int J Stroke. 2011 Aug;6(4):349-54
pubmed: 21745347
Disabil Rehabil. 2017 Jul;39(14):1449-1457
pubmed: 27374876
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Jan;88(1):94-8
pubmed: 17207682
Int J Stroke. 2020 Oct;15(7):763-788
pubmed: 31983296
Cerebrovasc Dis. 2017;43(1-2):1-8
pubmed: 27750246
Spinal Cord Ser Cases. 2020 Apr 28;6(1):28
pubmed: 32345965
Stroke. 2016 Jun;47(6):e98-e169
pubmed: 27145936
Implement Sci. 2014 Jan 02;9:3
pubmed: 24383701
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016 Jul;97(7):1064-71
pubmed: 27060032
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018 Mar;99(3):563-573.e5
pubmed: 28797618
Disabil Rehabil. 2022 Aug;44(17):4709-4716
pubmed: 34148468
J Neurol Phys Ther. 2018 Jul;42(3):174-220
pubmed: 29901487
Implement Sci. 2011 Mar 22;6:26
pubmed: 21426574
J Neurol Phys Ther. 2017 Jan;41(1):3-17
pubmed: 27977516
Lancet. 2018 May 19;391(10134):2019-2027
pubmed: 29864018
Bull World Health Organ. 2021 Sep 01;99(9):640-652E
pubmed: 34475601
Disabil Rehabil. 2021 Sep;43(18):2585-2592
pubmed: 31880184
Disabil Rehabil. 2022 Jul;44(14):3719-3735
pubmed: 33459080
Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(20):1695-8
pubmed: 22380626
Int J Stroke. 2017 Jul;12(5):451-461
pubmed: 28697709
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015 Jan;96(1):122-132.e29
pubmed: 25073007
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2013 Nov;22(8):e426-34
pubmed: 23721615
Phys Ther. 2021 Dec 1;101(12):
pubmed: 34636908
Phys Ther. 2013 Oct;93(10):1383-96
pubmed: 23704035
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2016 Oct;87(10):1091-8
pubmed: 27451353
Phys Ther. 2011 Nov;91(11):1583-91
pubmed: 21868613
Top Stroke Rehabil. 2020 May;27(4):251-261
pubmed: 31752634
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011 May 22;12:106
pubmed: 21600045
Intern Med. 2014;53(15):1621-4
pubmed: 25088873
J Neurol Phys Ther. 2020 Jan;44(1):49-100
pubmed: 31834165
J Eval Clin Pract. 2011 Aug;17(4):786-93
pubmed: 21040248
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 Sep;89(9):1708-13
pubmed: 18760155
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Dec;86(12 Suppl 2):S41-S50
pubmed: 16373139
J Med Libr Assoc. 2016 Jul;104(3):240-3
pubmed: 27366130
Disabil Rehabil. 2018 Jun;40(12):1401-1409
pubmed: 28320217
Clin Rehabil. 2000 Aug;14(4):402-6
pubmed: 10945424
Top Stroke Rehabil. 2021 Mar;28(2):153-158
pubmed: 32627722
Phys Ther. 2009 May;89(5):484-98
pubmed: 19329772
Phys Ther. 2009 Jun;89(6):556-68
pubmed: 19372171
Physiother Can. 2019 Summer;71(3):239-249
pubmed: 31719720
Biomed Res Int. 2019 Jun 20;2019:1354362
pubmed: 31321227
J Neurol Phys Ther. 2022 Oct 1;46(4):251-259
pubmed: 35671402
Phys Ther. 2009 Feb;89(2):125-35
pubmed: 19074618
Front Neurol. 2019 Jun 25;10:567
pubmed: 31293493
Stroke Res Treat. 2012;2012:820673
pubmed: 22567542
Disabil Rehabil. 2013 May;35(10):828-34
pubmed: 22900574
Can J Public Health. 1992 Jul-Aug;83 Suppl 2:S7-11
pubmed: 1468055
Thorax. 1984 Nov;39(11):818-22
pubmed: 6505988
Physiother Can. 2017;69(3):217-225
pubmed: 30275638
Ann Intern Med. 2012 Apr 3;156(7):525-31
pubmed: 22473437
J Chronic Dis. 1985;38(1):27-36
pubmed: 3972947
Age Ageing. 2006 Sep;35 Suppl 2:ii12-ii18
pubmed: 16926197
JAMA. 2001 Sep 26;286(12):1461-7
pubmed: 11572738
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467-473
pubmed: 30178033
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 Aug;83(8):1035-42
pubmed: 12161823
Physiother Res Int. 2019 Jan;24(1):e1756
pubmed: 30403320
Implement Sci. 2010 Sep 20;5:69
pubmed: 20854677
Scand J Rehabil Med. 1995 Mar;27(1):27-36
pubmed: 7792547
J Eval Clin Pract. 2015 Dec;21(6):1219-34
pubmed: 26200235
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Jan;117:109-116
pubmed: 31610216
Phys Ther. 2015 Nov;95(11):1507-17
pubmed: 25929532
PLoS One. 2015 Mar 13;10(3):e0120568
pubmed: 25768435
J Rehabil Med. 2011 May;43(6):543-9
pubmed: 21533335
Front Neurol. 2020 Sep 02;11:875
pubmed: 33013624
BMJ Open. 2015 Feb 18;5(2):e007047
pubmed: 25694459
Physiotherapy. 2015 Dec;101(4):373-80
pubmed: 26050134
Lancet. 2020 Oct 31;396(10260):1452-1462
pubmed: 33129396
Braz J Med Biol Res. 2004 Sep;37(9):1411-21
pubmed: 15334208
Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2018 Oct;54(5):772-784
pubmed: 29684980
J Rehabil Med. 2010 Apr;42(4):323-31
pubmed: 20461334
Stroke Vasc Neurol. 2020 Jun;5(2):159-176
pubmed: 32561535
Stroke. 2014 Jun;45(6):1784-90
pubmed: 24803595
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Feb 18;19(4):
pubmed: 35206533
Age Ageing. 2006 Sep;35 Suppl 2:ii7-ii11
pubmed: 16926210
J Geriatr Phys Ther. 2008;31(1):32-7
pubmed: 18489806
Stroke Res Treat. 2020 Jul 01;2020:9259017
pubmed: 32665830
Int J Stroke. 2011 Jun;6(3):251-8
pubmed: 21557813
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012 Jun;93(6):1101-7
pubmed: 22502804
NeuroRehabilitation. 2021;48(4):413-439
pubmed: 33967070
BMC Health Serv Res. 2018 Oct 23;18(1):810
pubmed: 30352584
BMJ Open. 2018 Feb 28;8(2):e018791
pubmed: 29490958
Lancet. 2020 Oct 17;396(10258):1204-1222
pubmed: 33069326