Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36896249›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2023

Standardized tools for assessing balance and mobility in stroke clinical practice guidelines worldwide: A scoping review.

Renato B Dos Santos, Annabelle Fiedler, Anchal Badwal, Jean Michelle Legasto-Mulvale, Kathryn M Sibley, Olubukola A Olaleye, Gudrun Diermayr, Nancy M Salbach

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

8 authors.

Renato B Dos SantosMaster's and Doctoral Programs in Physical Therapy, Universidade Cidade de Sao Paulo - UNICID, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Annabelle FiedlerSchool of Therapeutic Sciences, SRH University Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Anchal BadwalDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Jean Michelle Legasto-MulvaleRehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Kathryn M SibleyDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Olubukola A OlaleyeDepartment of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Clinical Sciences, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria.
Gudrun DiermayrSchool of Therapeutic Sciences, SRH University Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Nancy M SalbachRehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Use of standardized tools to assess balance and mobility limitations is a recommended practice in stroke rehabilitation. The extent to which clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for stroke rehabilitation recommend specific tools and provide resources to support their implementation is unknown. Purpose: To identify and describe standardized, performance-based tools for assessing balance and/or mobility and describe postural control components challenged, the approach used to select tools, and resources provided for clinical implementation, in CPGs for stroke. Methods: A scoping review was conducted. We included CPGs with recommendations on the delivery of stroke rehabilitation to address balance and mobility limitations. We searched seven electronic databases and grey literature. Pairs of reviewers reviewed abstracts and full texts in duplicate. We abstracted data about CPGs, standardized assessment tools, the approach for tool selection, and resources. Experts identified postural control components challenged by each tool. Results: Of the 19 CPGs included in the review, 7 (37%) and 12 (63%) were from middle- and high-income countries, respectively. Ten CPGs (53%) recommended or suggested 27 unique tools. Across 10 CPGs, the most commonly cited tools were the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) (90%), 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) (80%), Timed Up and Go Test (80%) and 10-Meter Walk Test (70%). The tool most frequently cited in middle- and high-income countries was the BBS (3/3 CPGs), and 6MWT (7/7 CPGs), respectively. Across 27 tools, the three components of postural control most frequently challenged were underlying motor systems (100%), anticipatory postural control (96%), and dynamic stability (85%). Five CPGs provided information in varying detail on how tools were selected; only 1 CPG provided a level of recommendation. Seven CPGs provided resources to support clinical implementation; one CPG from a middle-income country included a resource available in a CPG from a high-income country. Conclusion: CPGs for stroke rehabilitation do not consistently provide recommendations for standardized tools to assess balance and mobility or resources to facilitate clinical application. Reporting of processes for tool selection and recommendation is inadequate. Review findings can be used to inform global efforts to develop and translate recommendations and resources for using standardized tools to assess balance and mobility post-stroke. Systematic Review Registration: https://osf.io/, identifier: 10.17605/OSF.IO/6RBDV.

Indexed as

balanceclinical practice guidelinecountry incomeimplementation resourcesmobilitystandardized assessment toolsstroke rehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID36896249
PMCPMC9989207

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.