ArticlePM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation2019
Test-Retest Reliability of Dynamic Balance Performance-Based Measures Among Adults With a Unilateral Lower-Limb Amputation.
Article in PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Timed 360° Turn Test Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Cross-Sectional Reliability and Validity Study.Journal of clinical practice and research · 2024Article
- Article
- The feasibility and validity of a wearable sensor system to assess the stability of high-functioning lower-limb prosthesis users.Journal of prosthetics and orthotics : JPO · 2020Article
- Using Clinical Balance Tests to Assess Fall Risk among Established Unilateral Lower Limb Prosthesis Users: Cutoff Scores and Associated Validity Indices.PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2019-08-12Error in Analyses · Error in Results and/or Conclusions ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is large variation in administration of performance-based, dynamic balance measures among adults with lower-limb amputation (LLA). Further, there has been limited exploration of test-retest reliability of these measures in adults with lower-limb loss, including whether there is a difference in reliability if one records "best" vs "average" performance across trials.
objectiveTo determine test-retest reliability of several balance tests for both "best" and "average" score performance in community-dwelling adults with a unilateral LLA, including quantification of the precision of individual scores (SE of the measurement, SEM) and estimates of minimal detectable change (MDC
designCross-sectional study.
settingMobile research laboratory.
participants27 participants (55.5% female) with an average age of 51 (SD = 12.2) years, who were predominantly community-ambulators (92.5%), after a unilateral transtibial (n = 20), transfemoral (n = 5), or other major lower-extremity (n = 2) amputation, were included. Median time since amputation was 6.3 (2.3, 19 [25th, 75th interquartile range]) years.
methodsReliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) models (3,1 or 3,k). SEMs and MDC
main outcome measures360
resultsThe ICCs (3,1 or 3,k) for all tests (for both "best" and "average" performance) were considered good-to-excellent and CIs varied from 0.69 (95% CI = 0.40-0.85) to 0.97 (95% CI = 0.95-0.99). For most tests, "best" and "average" performance demonstrated similar ICC values. MDC
conclusionsThe dynamic balance measures evaluated for use among community-dwelling adults with a unilateral LLA demonstrated excellent reliability, along with high precision of scores and MDC values that did not exceed 10% of testing means. Either best or average scoring may be used when administering the majority of these tests, as long as the assessment method is appropriately documented and replicated at follow-up to allow direct comparisons. With the FSST, clinicians should consider taking the average of two FSST trials. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.