Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37551368›Full record

ReviewAsian biomedicine : research, reviews and news2021

Diagnostic tests to assess balance in patients with spinal cord injury: a systematic review of their validity and reliability.

Aatik Arsh, Haider Darain, Irfan Ullah, Syed Shakil-Ur-Rehman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Asian biomedicine : research, reviews and news, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

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

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Aatik ArshInstitute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Khyber Medical University, Peshawar, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 25100, Pakistan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3929-6606
Haider DarainInstitute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Khyber Medical University, Peshawar, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 25100, Pakistan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4949-7487
Irfan UllahKabir Medical College, Gandhara University, Peshawar, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 25000, Pakistan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1100-101X
Syed Shakil-Ur-RehmanRiphah College of Rehabilitation and Allied Health Sciences, Riphah International University Lahore, Punjab 54000, Pakistan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6682-9896

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Sophisticated biomechanical instruments can assess balance in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) with accuracy and precision; however, they are costly and time consuming to use. Clinical diagnostic tests to assess balance in patients with SCI are less costly and easier to use, but there is limited literature available regarding their reliability and validity. Objectives: To review systematically articles reporting the validity and reliability of diagnostic tests used to assess balance function in patients with SCI. Methods: We searched for articles in the English language from the earliest record to December 15, 2020, which reported validity or reliability of any clinical instrument or diagnostic test used to assess balance in patients with SCI. Articles assessing balance in paraplegic patients with causes other than SCI were excluded. Databases included MEDLINE, AMED, EMBASE, HMIC, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, and Google Scholar. The COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist was used to assess the studies included and PRISMA-DTA guidelines were applied. Results: We included 16 articles that assessed the validity or reliability of 10 diagnostic tests. The Functional Reach Test (FRT), Berg Balance Scale (BBS), and Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest) were assessed by more than 1 study, while the remaining 7 diagnostic tests including the Function in Sitting Test, T-Shirt Test, Motor Assessment Scale item 3, Sitting Balance Score, 5 Times Sit-to-Stand Test, Tinetti scale, and Sitting Balance Measure were assessed by 1 study each. The FRT has good-to-excellent test-retest reliability, excellent inter-rater reliability, and good construct, concurrent, and convergent validity. The BBS has excellent inter-rater and intra-rater reliability, high internal consistency, and good concurrent and construct validity. The Mini-BESTest has excellent test-retest reliability, excellent inter-rater reliability, high internal consistency, and good concurrent, convergent, and construct validity. Conclusions: The FRT, BBS, and Mini-BESTest appear to be valid and reliable clinical instruments to assess balance function in patients with SCI.

Indexed as

diagnostic testoutcome assessment, health carepostural balancereproducibility of resultsspinal cord injuries

Identifiers

PMID37551368
PMCPMC10388767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.