ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2023
A highly challenging balance training intervention for people with multiple sclerosis: a feasibility trial.
Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Co-Develop-IT! Unifying Methodological Guideline for the Co-Design, Development, and Evaluation of Individually Tailored Technology-Enhanced Training and Rehabilitation Concepts: Consensus Development Study and Tutorial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBalance training interventions with a gradual progression of difficulty and highly challenging tasks designed specifically for people with multiple sclerosis (MS) are rare. The objective was to adapt a balance training intervention originally developed for Parkinson's disease through a co-design process and then conduct a pilot trial in MS to evaluate the feasibility of a large, full-scale study.
methodsTwelve people with MS with mild to moderate overall MS-disability were included in this single-group feasibility trial. Participants received one-hour training sessions twice or three times weekly for 10 weeks. The assessment included tests of physical and cognitive functioning and patient-reported quality of life-related outcomes. Data on feasibility aspects were collected at baseline and follow-up assessments and three times during the intervention period to inform the recruitment process, as well as to monitor retention and inclusion rates, study procedures, intervention delivery, and dynamic changes in the selected potential outcome measures. Progression criteria were used to determine whether to proceed to a full-scale trial. Descriptive statistics were used to present the data.
resultsOut of six progression criteria, only retention and attendance at training sessions were not met. Reasons reported for not completing the intervention period mainly depended on external circumstances beyond the control of the study. In contrast, study procedures, intervention delivery, and intervention content (progression, adjustment, and control of challenge level of exercises) were considered feasible for a future, full-scale trial. The Mini-BESTest, which was used for the assessment of balance control, was considered suitable as the primary outcome in a full-scale trial with no ceiling or floor effects. Further, the Mini-BESTest showed a positive trend in outcome response with a median difference of 3.5 points between baseline and follow-up assessments. The power calculation performed suggests a feasible number of participants for recruitment.
conclusionsOverall trial aspects and intervention delivery were deemed feasible for a full-scale trial, but adjustments are needed to increase retention and attendance.
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.