ArticleThe journal of spinal cord medicine2024
Studies in the Falls Efficacy Scale-International for patients with cervical compressive myelopathy: Reliability, validity, and minimum clinically important difference.
Article in The journal of spinal cord medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Utilizing mobile robotics for pelvic perturbations to improve balance and cognitive performance in older adults: a randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2023Trial
- Effects of the Otago Exercise Program on Physical Function Performance Related to Falls in the Elderly: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Impact of physical therapy timing on fear of falling and outcomes in elderly patients with ankle fractures.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextPatients with cervical compressive myelopathy (CCM) often complain of body balance problems, such as fear of falling and bodily unsteadiness. However, no accepted patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for this symptomatology exist. The Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I) is one of the most widely used PROMs for evaluating impaired body balance in various clinical fields.
objectiveTo examine reliability, validity, and minimum clinically important difference (MCID) of the FES-I for the evaluation of impaired body balance in patients with CCM.
methodsPatients who underwent surgery for CCM were retrospectively reviewed. The FES-I was administered preoperatively and at 1 year postoperatively. Further, cJOA-LE score (subscore for lower extremities in the Japanese Orthopaedic Association score for cervical myelopathy) and stabilometric data, obtained at the same time points of the FES-I administration, were analyzed. Reliability was examined through internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha. Convergent validity was studied using correlation analysis. The MCID was estimated using anchor- and distribution-based methods.
resultsOverall, 151 patients were included for analysis. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was the acceptable value of 0.97 at both baseline and 1 year postoperatively. As for convergent validity, the FES-I had significant correlations with the cJOA-LE score and stabilometric parameters both at baseline and 1 year postoperatively. The MCID calculated using anchor- and distribution-based methods was 5.5 and 10, respectively.
conclusionFES-I is a reliable and valid PROM to evaluate body balance problems for the CCM population. The established thresholds of MCID can help clinicians recognize the clinical significance of changes in patient status.
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.