{"title":"Reliability of Static Balance Test in Faller and Nonfaller Parkinson Disease Patients","authors":"Yu-Ri Kwon, Ji-Won Kim","doi":"10.1142/s0219519423401036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Little is known about the reliability of center of pressure (COP) variables during static balance test in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD). Furthermore, reliability studies on fallers and nonfallers PD patients have not been explored. Therefore, our study investigated the test–retest reliability of COP outcome measures in faller and nonfaller PD patients. Eighty-one PD patients (49 nonfallers and 32 fallers) were recruited for measurement of static balance test. The patients maintained double-leg stance with feet on a force plate as stably as possible. To analyze the test–retest reliability of each COP outcome measures, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) statistical method was performed. Among COP outcome measures, mean velocity had the highest ICC value in faller patients ([Formula: see text]–0.915) and nonfaller patients ([Formula: see text]–0.960). Mean distance had excellent reliability in medio-lateral (ML) direction in both faller patients ([Formula: see text]) and nonfaller patients ([Formula: see text]). Ellipse area had excellent reliability in nonfaller patients ([Formula: see text]), but less reliability in faller patients ([Formula: see text]). Our results demonstrate that objective and quantitative balance assessment method is reliable in PD patients with or without a history of falls. On the other hand, it was not appropriate to use ellipse area to assess postural balance for faller PD patients. Our findings could be useful to develop an optimal balance protocol and apply appropriate COP outcome measures for PD patients.","PeriodicalId":50135,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Mechanics in Medicine and Biology","volume":"117 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Mechanics in Medicine and Biology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219519423401036","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Little is known about the reliability of center of pressure (COP) variables during static balance test in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD). Furthermore, reliability studies on fallers and nonfallers PD patients have not been explored. Therefore, our study investigated the test–retest reliability of COP outcome measures in faller and nonfaller PD patients. Eighty-one PD patients (49 nonfallers and 32 fallers) were recruited for measurement of static balance test. The patients maintained double-leg stance with feet on a force plate as stably as possible. To analyze the test–retest reliability of each COP outcome measures, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) statistical method was performed. Among COP outcome measures, mean velocity had the highest ICC value in faller patients ([Formula: see text]–0.915) and nonfaller patients ([Formula: see text]–0.960). Mean distance had excellent reliability in medio-lateral (ML) direction in both faller patients ([Formula: see text]) and nonfaller patients ([Formula: see text]). Ellipse area had excellent reliability in nonfaller patients ([Formula: see text]), but less reliability in faller patients ([Formula: see text]). Our results demonstrate that objective and quantitative balance assessment method is reliable in PD patients with or without a history of falls. On the other hand, it was not appropriate to use ellipse area to assess postural balance for faller PD patients. Our findings could be useful to develop an optimal balance protocol and apply appropriate COP outcome measures for PD patients.
期刊介绍:
This journal has as its objective the publication and dissemination of original research (even for "revolutionary concepts that contrast with existing theories" & "hypothesis") in all fields of engineering-mechanics that includes mechanisms, processes, bio-sensors and bio-devices in medicine, biology and healthcare. The journal publishes original papers in English which contribute to an understanding of biomedical engineering and science at a nano- to macro-scale or an improvement of the methods and techniques of medical, biological and clinical treatment by the application of advanced high technology.
Journal''s Research Scopes/Topics Covered (but not limited to):
Artificial Organs, Biomechanics of Organs.
Biofluid Mechanics, Biorheology, Blood Flow Measurement Techniques, Microcirculation, Hemodynamics.
Bioheat Transfer and Mass Transport, Nano Heat Transfer.
Biomaterials.
Biomechanics & Modeling of Cell and Molecular.
Biomedical Instrumentation and BioSensors that implicate ''human mechanics'' in details.
Biomedical Signal Processing Techniques that implicate ''human mechanics'' in details.
Bio-Microelectromechanical Systems, Microfluidics.
Bio-Nanotechnology and Clinical Application.
Bird and Insect Aerodynamics.
Cardiovascular/Cardiac mechanics.
Cardiovascular Systems Physiology/Engineering.
Cellular and Tissue Mechanics/Engineering.
Computational Biomechanics/Physiological Modelling, Systems Physiology.
Clinical Biomechanics.
Hearing Mechanics.
Human Movement and Animal Locomotion.
Implant Design and Mechanics.
Mathematical modeling.
Mechanobiology of Diseases.
Mechanics of Medical Robotics.
Muscle/Neuromuscular/Musculoskeletal Mechanics and Engineering.
Neural- & Neuro-Behavioral Engineering.
Orthopedic Biomechanics.
Reproductive and Urogynecological Mechanics.
Respiratory System Engineering...