比较迷你平衡评估系统测试和伯格平衡量表在测量亚急性中风患者平衡能力方面的实用性:一项前瞻性队列研究

IF 1.3 Q3 REHABILITATION
S. Inoue, Hideyuki Takagi, Emiko Tan, Chisato Oyama, Eri Otaka, K. Kondo, Y. Otaka
{"title":"比较迷你平衡评估系统测试和伯格平衡量表在测量亚急性中风患者平衡能力方面的实用性:一项前瞻性队列研究","authors":"S. Inoue, Hideyuki Takagi, Emiko Tan, Chisato Oyama, Eri Otaka, K. Kondo, Y. Otaka","doi":"10.3389/fresc.2023.1308706","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this study was to compare the clinical applicability of the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test and the Berg Balance Scale for measuring balance in inpatients with subacute stroke.This was a prospective observational study which included 58 consecutive patients admitted to a convalescent rehabilitation hospital with a first-ever stroke and who met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. The Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test and the Berg Balance Scale were used to assess patient balance at admission and discharge. The ceiling and floor effects and responsiveness of each balance score were examined. In addition, receiver operating characteristic analysis based on each balance score at admission was used to examine its discriminative power to predict ambulatory independence and falls during hospitalization.The mean (standard deviation) change between admission and discharge for each balance scale was 4.4 (4.7) for the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test and 8.3 (10.0) for the Berg Balance Scale, with standard response means, a measure of responsiveness of 0.9 (large) and 0.8 (medium), respectively. Each balance score at admission almost equally predicted gait independence and fallers during hospitalization. On the contrary, only the distribution of scores on the Berg Balance Scale at discharge showed a ceiling effect, with 25 patients (43%) obtaining a perfect score.The Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test may be useful as a balance measure for inpatients with subacute stroke because it is less susceptible to ceiling effects and more responsive than the Berg Balance Scale.","PeriodicalId":73102,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of usefulness between the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test and the Berg Balance Scale for measuring balance in patients with subacute stroke: a prospective cohort study\",\"authors\":\"S. Inoue, Hideyuki Takagi, Emiko Tan, Chisato Oyama, Eri Otaka, K. Kondo, Y. Otaka\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fresc.2023.1308706\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The aim of this study was to compare the clinical applicability of the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test and the Berg Balance Scale for measuring balance in inpatients with subacute stroke.This was a prospective observational study which included 58 consecutive patients admitted to a convalescent rehabilitation hospital with a first-ever stroke and who met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. The Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test and the Berg Balance Scale were used to assess patient balance at admission and discharge. The ceiling and floor effects and responsiveness of each balance score were examined. In addition, receiver operating characteristic analysis based on each balance score at admission was used to examine its discriminative power to predict ambulatory independence and falls during hospitalization.The mean (standard deviation) change between admission and discharge for each balance scale was 4.4 (4.7) for the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test and 8.3 (10.0) for the Berg Balance Scale, with standard response means, a measure of responsiveness of 0.9 (large) and 0.8 (medium), respectively. Each balance score at admission almost equally predicted gait independence and fallers during hospitalization. On the contrary, only the distribution of scores on the Berg Balance Scale at discharge showed a ceiling effect, with 25 patients (43%) obtaining a perfect score.The Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test may be useful as a balance measure for inpatients with subacute stroke because it is less susceptible to ceiling effects and more responsive than the Berg Balance Scale.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73102,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fresc.2023.1308706\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fresc.2023.1308706","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在比较迷你平衡评估系统测试(Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test)和伯格平衡量表(Berg Balance Scale)在测量亚急性脑卒中住院患者平衡能力方面的临床适用性。这是一项前瞻性观察研究,研究对象包括 58 名连续入住疗养康复医院且符合纳入/排除标准的首次脑卒中患者。入院和出院时使用迷你平衡评估系统测试(Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test)和伯格平衡量表(Berg Balance Scale)评估患者的平衡能力。研究了每个平衡评分的上限和下限效应以及响应性。入院和出院时各平衡量表的平均值(标准差)变化分别为:迷你平衡评估系统测试 4.4 (4.7),Berg 平衡量表 8.3 (10.0),标准响应平均值(衡量响应度的指标)分别为 0.9(大)和 0.8(中)。入院时的每项平衡评分几乎都能预测住院期间的步态独立性和跌倒情况。相反,只有出院时 Berg 平衡量表的得分分布出现了天花板效应,有 25 名患者(43%)获得了满分。"迷你平衡评估系统测试 "与 Berg 平衡量表相比,不易出现天花板效应,反应灵敏,因此可作为亚急性脑卒中住院患者的平衡测量指标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of usefulness between the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test and the Berg Balance Scale for measuring balance in patients with subacute stroke: a prospective cohort study
The aim of this study was to compare the clinical applicability of the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test and the Berg Balance Scale for measuring balance in inpatients with subacute stroke.This was a prospective observational study which included 58 consecutive patients admitted to a convalescent rehabilitation hospital with a first-ever stroke and who met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. The Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test and the Berg Balance Scale were used to assess patient balance at admission and discharge. The ceiling and floor effects and responsiveness of each balance score were examined. In addition, receiver operating characteristic analysis based on each balance score at admission was used to examine its discriminative power to predict ambulatory independence and falls during hospitalization.The mean (standard deviation) change between admission and discharge for each balance scale was 4.4 (4.7) for the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test and 8.3 (10.0) for the Berg Balance Scale, with standard response means, a measure of responsiveness of 0.9 (large) and 0.8 (medium), respectively. Each balance score at admission almost equally predicted gait independence and fallers during hospitalization. On the contrary, only the distribution of scores on the Berg Balance Scale at discharge showed a ceiling effect, with 25 patients (43%) obtaining a perfect score.The Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test may be useful as a balance measure for inpatients with subacute stroke because it is less susceptible to ceiling effects and more responsive than the Berg Balance Scale.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信