Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22114200›Full record

Trial reportPhysical therapy2012

Sensitivity to change and responsiveness of four balance measures for community-dwelling older adults.

Poonam K Pardasaney, Nancy K Latham, Alan M Jette, Robert C Wagenaar, Pengsheng Ni, Mary D Slavin, Jonathan F Bean

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Physical therapy, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

71 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Poonam K PardasaneyHealth and Disability Research Institute, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston University, Boston, MA 02118-2526, USA. poonamp@bu.edu
Nancy K Latham
Alan M Jette
Robert C Wagenaar
Pengsheng Ni
Mary D Slavin
Jonathan F Bean

Funding

A Research Mentoring Program in the Rehabilitative Care of Older AdultsK24HD070966 · NICHD · SPAULDING REHABILITATION HOSPITAL · PI BEAN, JONATHAN F · 2012 to 2016
$793k
Ameliorating Disability through Power TrainingK23AG019663 · NIA · SPAULDING REHABILITATION HOSPITAL · PI BEAN, JONATHAN F · 2003 to 2006
$627k
NIA NIH HHS K23 AG019663NIA NIH HHS K23AG019663-01A2NICHD NIH HHS K24 HD070966
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImpaired balance has a significant negative impact on mobility, functional independence, and fall risk in older adults. Although several, well-respected balance measures are currently in use, there is limited evidence regarding the most appropriate measure to assess change in community-dwelling older adults.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to compare floor and ceiling effects, sensitivity to change, and responsiveness across the following balance measures in community-dwelling elderly people with functional limitations: Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment total scale (POMA-T), POMA balance subscale (POMA-B), and Dynamic Gait Index (DGI).

designRetrospective data from a 16-week exercise trial were used. Secondary analyses were conducted on the total sample and by subgroups of baseline functional limitation or baseline balance scores.

methodsParticipants were 111 community-dwelling older adults 65 years of age or older, with functional limitations. Sensitivity to change was assessed using effect size, standardized response mean, and paired t tests. Responsiveness was assessed using minimally important difference (MID) estimates.

resultsNo floor effects were noted. Ceiling effects were observed on all measures, including in people with moderate to severe functional limitations. The POMA-T, POMA-B, and DGI showed significantly larger ceiling effects compared with the BBS. All measures had low sensitivity to change in total sample analyses. Subgroup analyses revealed significantly better sensitivity to change in people with lower compared with higher baseline balance scores. Although both the total sample and lower baseline balance subgroups showed statistically significant improvement from baseline to 16 weeks on all measures, only the lower balance subgroup showed change scores that consistently exceeded corresponding MID estimates. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited to comparing 4 measures of balance, and anchor-based methods for assessing MID could not be reported.

conclusionsImportant limitations, including ceiling effects and relatively low sensitivity to change and responsiveness, were noted across all balance measures, highlighting their limited utility across the full spectrum of the community-dwelling elderly population. New, more challenging measures are needed for better discrimination of balance ability in community-dwelling elderly people at higher functional levels.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalGeriatric AssessmentAccidental FallsAgedAged, 80 and overConfidence IntervalsExercise TherapyFemaleGaitHumansMalePostural BalanceReproducibility of ResultsRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID22114200
PMCPMC3291380

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.