Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24557649›Full record

ArticlePhysical therapy2014

Validity and reliability of the community balance and mobility scale in individuals with knee osteoarthritis.

Judit Takacs, S Jayne Garland, Mark G Carpenter, Michael A Hunt

Open access · bronzeAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Physical therapy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
15.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Judit TakacsJ. Takacs, MSc, Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
S Jayne GarlandS.J. Garland, PT, PhD, Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia.
Mark G CarpenterM.G. Carpenter, PhD, School of Kinesiology, University of British Columbia.
Michael A HuntM.A. Hunt, PT, PhD, Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z3. michael.hunt@ubc.ca.
University of British Columbia · CA

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a high incidence of falls in older adults with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Adequate dynamic balance and mobility reduce the risk of falls; however, there are currently no validated, advanced tests of dynamic balance and mobility for individuals with knee OA.

objectiveThe purpose of this study was to determine the convergent validity, known-groups validity, and test-retest reliability of a dynamic test of balance and mobility, the Community Balance and Mobility Scale (CB&M), in a knee OA population.

designA cross-sectional design was used.

methodsTwenty-five individuals aged 50 years and older with medial knee OA and an equal number of healthy controls completed the CB&M and other tests of balance and mobility, including the Berg Balance Scale, the Timed "Up & Go" Test, a test of maximal single-leg stance time, and the 10-Meter Walk Test (self-selected and fast walking speed). Convergent validity of balance tests with the CB&M was assessed using Pearson product moment correlation coefficients, and known-groups validity was assessed using independent t tests. Test-retest reliability of the CB&M was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and standard error of measurement (SEM).

resultsScores on the CB&M were significantly correlated with all measures of balance and mobility for those with knee OA. There were significant differences in CB&M scores between groups. Scores on the CB&M were highly reliable in people with knee OA (ICC=.95, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]=0.70 to 0.99; SEM=3, 95% CI=2.68 to 4.67). LIMITATIONS: Few participants had severe knee OA.

conclusionsThe CB&M displayed moderate convergent validity, excellent known-groups validity, and high test-retest reliability. The CB&M can be used as a valid and reliable tool to assess dynamic balance and mobility deficits in people with knee OA.

Indexed as

AgedCross-Sectional StudiesExercise TestFemaleHumansKnee JointMaleMiddle AgedOsteoarthritis, KneePostural BalanceReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID24557649
PMCPMC4040425
OpenAlexW2166179409

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.