ArticleNeuroRehabilitation2020
Test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test and its two abbreviated versions in persons with mild to moderate spinocerebellar ataxia: A pilot study.
Article in NeuroRehabilitation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Measurement Properties of the BESTest Scale in People With Neurological Conditions: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.Physical therapy · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Effects of physiotherapy on degenerative cerebellar ataxia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Long-Term Effects of Annual Intensive Rehabilitation in Patients with Hereditary Pure Cerebellar Ataxia: A 7-year Follow-up Study.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2025Article
- Differences in the Impact of Intensive Rehabilitation on Hereditary Ataxias and the Cerebellar Subtype of Multiple System Atrophy.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe reliability of the evaluation of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) and its two abbreviated versions are confirmed for balance characteristics and reliability. However, they are not utilized in cases of spinocerebellar ataxia (SCA).
objectiveWe aimed to examine the test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change (MDC) of the BESTest and its abbreviated versions in persons with mild to moderate spinocerebellar ataxia.
methodsThe BESTest was performed in 20 persons with SCA at baseline and one month later. The scores of the abbreviated version of the BESTest were determined from the BESTest scores. The interclass correlation coefficient (1,1) was used as a measure of relative reliability. Furthermore, we calculated the MDC in the BESTest and its abbreviated versions.
resultsThe intraclass correlation coefficients (1,1) and MDC at 95% confidence intervals were 0.92, 8.7(8.1%), 0.91, 4.1(14.5%), and 0.81, 5.2(21.6%) for the Balance, Mini-Balance, and Brief-Balance Evaluation Systems Tests, respectively.
conclusionsThe BESTest and its abbreviated versions had high test-retest reliability. The MDC values of the BESTest could enable clinicians and researchers to interpret changes in the balance of patients with SCA more precisely.
Indexed as
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.