ArticleJournal of rehabilitation medicine2021
Which Balance Evaluation Systems Test sections best distinguish levels of post-stroke functional walking status?
Article in Journal of rehabilitation medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper 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
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
objectiveTo determine which sections of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) distinguish levels of post-stroke functional walking status and to establish their cut-off scores.
designA retrospective cross-sectional study. SUBJECTS AND
methodsThe BESTest was administered to 87 stroke patients who were able to walk without physical assistance upon discharge from the hospital. Subjects were divided into 3 functional walking status groups: namely, household ambulators, limited community ambulators, and unlimited community ambulators. The receiver operating characteristic curve was determined and the cut-off score and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of each section calculated.
resultsIn the comparison of household and limited community ambulators, the accuracies of all BESTest sections were moderate (AUROC>0.7), and the cut-off scores were 36.1-78.6%. In the comparison of limited and unlimited community ambulators, one section (stability in gait) had high accuracy (AUROC=0.908, cut-off scores=73.8%) and 3 sections (biomechanical constraints, anticipatory postural adjustments, and postural response) had moderate accuracy (AUROC=0.8120-0.834, cut-off scores=75.0-83.4%).
conclusionThis study demonstrated that different sections of the BESTest had different abilities to discriminate levels of post-stroke functional walking status, and identified cut-off values for targeted improvement.
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.