ArticleJournal of physical therapy science2021
Sensitivity to change and responsiveness of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest), Mini-BESTest, and Brief-BESTest in patients with subacute cerebral infarction.
Article in Journal of physical therapy science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Measurement Properties of the BESTest Scale in People With Neurological Conditions: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis.Physical therapy · 2025Pooled it
- Balance measures of mini and brief balance evaluation system tests for Iranian population.Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene · 2024Article
- Responsiveness of the Mini-Balance Evaluation System Test in Type 2 Diabetic Patients with Peripheral Neuropathy.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
[Purpose] To compare the sensitivity to change and responsiveness of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test, Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test, and Brief-Balance Evaluation Systems Test in patients with subacute cerebral infarction. [Participants and Methods] Thirty patients with subacute cerebral infarction participated in this study. The Balance Evaluation Systems Test, Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test, Brief-Balance Evaluation Systems Test, Berg Balance Scale, and ambulatory ability were assessed on admission and discharge. Sensitivity to change was calculated using the effect size, standardized response mean, and relative efficiency. Responsiveness was analyzed by comparing the ability of the difference between the scores of the balance assessments at admission and discharge in classifying the participants' ambulatory independence. [Results] All assessments showed significant improvement from admission to discharge. The effect size of the three versions of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test ranged from 0.41 to 0.69. The standardized response mean ranged from 0.75 to 1.28. The cutoff score was 16.7% for the Balance Evaluation Systems Test, 5.5 points for the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test, 1.5 points for the Brief-Balance Evaluation Systems Test, and 3.5 points for the Berg Balance Scale. [Conclusion] The sensitivity to change of the three versions of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test was high or moderate. However, the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test had the highest responsiveness, as determined with the extent of ambulatory independence.
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.