Diagnostic tests to assess balance in patients with spinal cord injury: a systematic review of their validity and reliability.
diagnostic test
outcome assessment, health care
postural balance
reproducibility of results
spinal cord injuries
Journal
Asian biomedicine : research, reviews and news
ISSN: 1875-855X
Titre abrégé: Asian Biomed (Res Rev News)
Pays: Thailand
ID NLM: 101465147
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2021
Jun 2021
Historique:
medline:
30
6
2021
pubmed:
30
6
2021
entrez:
8
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Sophisticated biomechanical instruments can assess balance in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) with accuracy and precision; however, they are costly and time consuming to use. Clinical diagnostic tests to assess balance in patients with SCI are less costly and easier to use, but there is limited literature available regarding their reliability and validity. To review systematically articles reporting the validity and reliability of diagnostic tests used to assess balance function in patients with SCI. We searched for articles in the English language from the earliest record to December 15, 2020, which reported validity or reliability of any clinical instrument or diagnostic test used to assess balance in patients with SCI. Articles assessing balance in paraplegic patients with causes other than SCI were excluded. Databases included MEDLINE, AMED, EMBASE, HMIC, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist was used to assess the studies included and PRISMA-DTA guidelines were applied. We included 16 articles that assessed the validity or reliability of 10 diagnostic tests. The Functional Reach Test (FRT), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), and Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest) were assessed by more than 1 study, while the remaining 7 diagnostic tests including the Function in Sitting Test, T-Shirt Test, Motor Assessment Scale item 3, Sitting Balance Score, 5 Times Sit-to-Stand Test, Tinetti scale, and Sitting Balance Measure were assessed by 1 study each. The FRT has good-to-excellent test-retest reliability, excellent inter-rater reliability, and good construct, concurrent, and convergent validity. The BBS has excellent inter-rater and intra-rater reliability, high internal consistency, and good concurrent and construct validity. The Mini-BESTest has excellent test-retest reliability, excellent inter-rater reliability, high internal consistency, and good concurrent, convergent, and construct validity. The FRT, BBS, and Mini-BESTest appear to be valid and reliable clinical instruments to assess balance function in patients with SCI.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Sophisticated biomechanical instruments can assess balance in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) with accuracy and precision; however, they are costly and time consuming to use. Clinical diagnostic tests to assess balance in patients with SCI are less costly and easier to use, but there is limited literature available regarding their reliability and validity.
Objectives
UNASSIGNED
To review systematically articles reporting the validity and reliability of diagnostic tests used to assess balance function in patients with SCI.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
We searched for articles in the English language from the earliest record to December 15, 2020, which reported validity or reliability of any clinical instrument or diagnostic test used to assess balance in patients with SCI. Articles assessing balance in paraplegic patients with causes other than SCI were excluded. Databases included MEDLINE, AMED, EMBASE, HMIC, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist was used to assess the studies included and PRISMA-DTA guidelines were applied.
Results
UNASSIGNED
We included 16 articles that assessed the validity or reliability of 10 diagnostic tests. The Functional Reach Test (FRT), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), and Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest) were assessed by more than 1 study, while the remaining 7 diagnostic tests including the Function in Sitting Test, T-Shirt Test, Motor Assessment Scale item 3, Sitting Balance Score, 5 Times Sit-to-Stand Test, Tinetti scale, and Sitting Balance Measure were assessed by 1 study each. The FRT has good-to-excellent test-retest reliability, excellent inter-rater reliability, and good construct, concurrent, and convergent validity. The BBS has excellent inter-rater and intra-rater reliability, high internal consistency, and good concurrent and construct validity. The Mini-BESTest has excellent test-retest reliability, excellent inter-rater reliability, high internal consistency, and good concurrent, convergent, and construct validity.
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
The FRT, BBS, and Mini-BESTest appear to be valid and reliable clinical instruments to assess balance function in patients with SCI.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37551368
doi: 10.2478/abm-2021-0014
pii: abm-2021-0014
pmc: PMC10388767
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
111-118Informations de copyright
© 2021 Aatik Arsh et al., published by Sciendo.
Références
J Neurotrauma. 2004 Oct;21(10):1371-83
pubmed: 15672628
Spinal Cord. 2011 Apr;49(4):520-4
pubmed: 21151192
Implement Sci. 2013 Mar 20;8:33
pubmed: 23510277
J Neuroeng Rehabil. 2014 May 13;11:86
pubmed: 24886312
J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2011 Jan;15(1):82-91
pubmed: 21147423
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012 Sep;93(9):1508-17
pubmed: 21777905
Gait Posture. 2010 Mar;31(3):307-10
pubmed: 20005112
Spinal Cord. 2016 Apr;54(4):319-23
pubmed: 26458968
J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2003 Feb;13(1):49-56
pubmed: 12488086
J Spinal Cord Med. 2007;30(1):40-9
pubmed: 17385269
J Neurol Phys Ther. 2018 Jul;42(3):174-220
pubmed: 29901487
J Spinal Cord Med. 2015 Jul;38(4):439-45
pubmed: 24621036
J Neurotrauma. 2006 Mar-Apr;23(3-4):571-85
pubmed: 16629638
Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2013 May;24(2):355-70
pubmed: 23598268
Phys Ther. 1998 Feb;78(2):128-33
pubmed: 9474105
J Spinal Cord Med. 2020 Nov;43(6):846-853
pubmed: 30998421
Spinal Cord. 2011 Jul;49(7):838-43
pubmed: 21358720
Clin Rehabil. 2009 Sep;23(9):824-40
pubmed: 19656816
Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil. 2012 Spring;18(2):149-66
pubmed: 23460762
Afr J Med Med Sci. 2002 Dec;31(4):357-60
pubmed: 15027780
Spinal Cord. 2010 Oct;48(10):745-9
pubmed: 20157313
Spinal Cord. 2009 Aug;47(8):582-91
pubmed: 19381157
J Spinal Cord Med. 2019 Oct;42(sup1):141-148
pubmed: 31573459
Neurophysiol Clin. 2008 Dec;38(6):439-45
pubmed: 19026963
J Spinal Cord Med. 2003 Fall;26(3):236-43
pubmed: 14997965
Physiother Theory Pract. 2021 Jan;37(1):126-134
pubmed: 31156010
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009 Sep;90(9):1571-7
pubmed: 19735786
Spinal Cord. 2010 Mar;48(3):245-50
pubmed: 19773797
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Mar;88(3 Suppl 1):S62-70
pubmed: 17321851
J Spinal Cord Med. 2020 Jan;43(1):10-23
pubmed: 29869951
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012 Feb;93(2):237-44
pubmed: 22289232
Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2010 Jun;46(2):239-48
pubmed: 20485226
Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(21):1820-6
pubmed: 22423597
Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2010;28(1):123-34
pubmed: 20086289
Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2010 Jun;46(2):221-37
pubmed: 20485225
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017 Aug;31(8):708-716
pubmed: 28691582
Spinal Cord. 2008 Apr;46(4):246-54
pubmed: 17923844
Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2013 Jun;49(3):353-64
pubmed: 23486301
Med Educ. 2010 Jan;44(1):75-84
pubmed: 20078758
World J Orthop. 2015 Jan 18;6(1):8-16
pubmed: 25621206
Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1171-1179
pubmed: 29260445
Phys Ther. 2017 Jun 01;97(6):677-687
pubmed: 28371940
Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1147-1157
pubmed: 29435801
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010 Jan;24(1):70-7
pubmed: 19675123
Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 20;7(1):32
pubmed: 29463298
BMJ. 2020 Aug 14;370:m2632
pubmed: 32816740