ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2023
Construct validity of the Mini-BESTest in individuals with chronic pain in specialized pain care.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07264101 (Validity And Reliability Of The Four Square Step Test In Individuals With Rheumatoid Arthritis), which is not on this 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.
Validity And Reliability Of The Four Square Step Test In Individuals With Rheumatoid Arthritis
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Use of pain neuroscience education, balance evaluation, and exercise for treating chronic pain with kinesiophobia: a narrative review with clinical recommendations.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Opioid Use and Prescription Opioid Use Disorder: Biopsychosocial Characterisation of a Clinical Chronic Pain Cohort.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBalance assessment scales are important clinical tests to identify balance impairments. Chronic pain (> 3 months) is associated with impaired dynamic balance; however, very few balance assessment scales are psychometrically evaluated for the population. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the construct validity and internal consistency of the Mini-BESTest for individuals with chronic pain in specialized pain care.
methodsIn this cross-sectional study, 180 individuals with chronic pain (> 3 months) were assessed with the Mini-BESTest and included in the analyses. For construct validity, five alternative factor structures were evaluated using a confirmatory factor analysis. In addition, we tested the a priori hypotheses about convergent validity with the 10-meter walk test, and divergent validity with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI): pain intensity, the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia-11 (TSK-11), and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS-SW). Internal consistency was evaluated for the model with the best fit.
resultsA one-factor model with added covariance via the modification indices showed adequate fit indices. In line with our hypotheses, Mini-BESTest showed convergent validity (r
conclusionsOur study supported the construct validity and internal consistency of the Mini-BESTest for measuring balance in individuals with chronic pain, who were referred to specialized pain care. The one-factor model showed an adequate fit. In comparison, models with subscales did not reach convergence, or showed high correlations between subscales, implying that Mini-BESTest is measuring one construct in this sample. We, therefore, propose using the total score, instead of subscale scores, for individuals with chronic pain. However, further studies are necessary to establish the reliability of the Mini-BESTest in the population.
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.