Discriminative accuracy of the 42-point modified Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test for identifying Expanded Disability Status Scale-defined disability in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: an exploratory diagnostic accuracy study.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 REHABILITATION
Tadeja Hernja Rumpf
{"title":"Discriminative accuracy of the 42-point modified Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test for identifying Expanded Disability Status Scale-defined disability in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: an exploratory diagnostic accuracy study.","authors":"Tadeja Hernja Rumpf","doi":"10.1097/MRR.0000000000000721","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Balance impairment is common in multiple sclerosis, but the discriminative performance of clinical balance measures for Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS)-defined disability remains unclear. I compared the 42-point modified Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (modified Mini-BESTest) and the Single-Leg Stance Test (SLST) for EDSS greater than or equal to 4.0 in adults with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. This secondary, single-center, cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy analysis used prospectively collected data from 54 ambulatory participants with static or dynamic balance impairment (EDSS = 1.0-6.0). Both balance tests were administered during the same outpatient visit, while EDSS was assessed separately by a neurologist. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were compared using the DeLong test; associations were estimated with Firth penalized logistic regression, and the Youden-derived threshold was assessed by bootstrapping. Twenty-five participants (46%) had EDSS greater than or equal to 4.0. The modified Mini-BESTest showed an AUC of 0.95 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.90-1.00], exceeding the SLST (0.77, 0.65-0.90; DeLong Z = 3.18, P = 0.002). An exploratory threshold of less than or equal to 31/42 yielded 92% sensitivity, 90% specificity, a positive likelihood ratio of 8.9 and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.09, and recurred in 79% of 2000 bootstrap resamples. Each additional point was associated with lower adjusted odds of EDSS greater than or equal to 4.0 (odds ratio = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.61-0.86). The modified Mini-BESTest showed excellent discrimination and outperformed the SLST. The less than or equal to 31/42 threshold is exploratory, requires external validation, and must not be applied to the standard 28-point Mini-BESTest.</p>","PeriodicalId":14301,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Rehabilitation Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Rehabilitation Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MRR.0000000000000721","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Balance impairment is common in multiple sclerosis, but the discriminative performance of clinical balance measures for Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS)-defined disability remains unclear. I compared the 42-point modified Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (modified Mini-BESTest) and the Single-Leg Stance Test (SLST) for EDSS greater than or equal to 4.0 in adults with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. This secondary, single-center, cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy analysis used prospectively collected data from 54 ambulatory participants with static or dynamic balance impairment (EDSS = 1.0-6.0). Both balance tests were administered during the same outpatient visit, while EDSS was assessed separately by a neurologist. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were compared using the DeLong test; associations were estimated with Firth penalized logistic regression, and the Youden-derived threshold was assessed by bootstrapping. Twenty-five participants (46%) had EDSS greater than or equal to 4.0. The modified Mini-BESTest showed an AUC of 0.95 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.90-1.00], exceeding the SLST (0.77, 0.65-0.90; DeLong Z = 3.18, P = 0.002). An exploratory threshold of less than or equal to 31/42 yielded 92% sensitivity, 90% specificity, a positive likelihood ratio of 8.9 and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.09, and recurred in 79% of 2000 bootstrap resamples. Each additional point was associated with lower adjusted odds of EDSS greater than or equal to 4.0 (odds ratio = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.61-0.86). The modified Mini-BESTest showed excellent discrimination and outperformed the SLST. The less than or equal to 31/42 threshold is exploratory, requires external validation, and must not be applied to the standard 28-point Mini-BESTest.

在复发缓解型多发性硬化症中识别扩展残疾状态量表定义残疾的42点修正迷你平衡评估系统测试的判别准确性:一项探索性诊断准确性研究。
平衡障碍在多发性硬化症中很常见,但临床平衡测量对扩展残疾状态量表(EDSS)定义的残疾的鉴别性能仍不清楚。我比较了42分改良的迷你平衡评估系统测试(改良Mini-BESTest)和单腿站立测试(SLST)对大于或等于4.0的复发缓解型多发性硬化症成人EDSS的影响。这项次要的、单中心的、横断的诊断准确性分析前瞻性地收集了54名静态或动态平衡障碍(EDSS = 1.0-6.0)的动态参与者的数据。两种平衡测试在同一门诊期间进行,而EDSS由神经科医生单独评估。采用DeLong试验比较受试者工作特征曲线下面积(AUC);用Firth惩罚逻辑回归估计关联,并用bootstrapping评估youden衍生阈值。25名参与者(46%)的EDSS大于或等于4.0。修正后的Mini-BESTest的AUC为0.95[95%置信区间(CI) = 0.90 ~ 1.00],超过SLST (0.77, 0.65 ~ 0.90; DeLong Z = 3.18, P = 0.002)。小于或等于31/42的探索性阈值产生92%的敏感性,90%的特异性,阳性似然比为8.9,阴性似然比为0.09,并且在2000个bootstrap样本中的79%中复发。每增加一个点,EDSS的调整后的低比值大于或等于4.0(比值比= 0.75,95% CI = 0.61-0.86)。改进后的Mini-BESTest具有优异的识别性能,优于SLST。小于或等于31/42的阈值是探索性的,需要外部验证,不能应用于标准的28分mini - best。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
88
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Rehabilitation Research is a quarterly, peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary forum for the publication of research into functioning, disability and contextual factors experienced by persons of all ages in both developed and developing societies. The wealth of information offered makes the journal a valuable resource for researchers, practitioners, and administrators in such fields as rehabilitation medicine, outcome measurement nursing, social and vocational rehabilitation/case management, return to work, special education, social policy, social work and social welfare, sociology, psychology, psychiatry assistive technology and environmental factors/disability. Areas of interest include functioning and disablement throughout the life cycle; rehabilitation programmes for persons with physical, sensory, mental and developmental disabilities; measurement of functioning and disability; special education and vocational rehabilitation; equipment access and transportation; information technology; independent living; consumer, legal, economic and sociopolitical aspects of functioning, disability and contextual factors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书