ArticleScientific reports2023
The test-retest reliability and limits of agreement of the balance evaluation systems test (BESTest) in young people with intellectual disability.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Effectiveness of dynamic neuromuscular stabilization training on strength, endurance, and flexibility in adults with intellectual disabilities, a randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Exploring the Impact of Adaptive Behaviors on Balance: A Comparative Analysis of Static and Dynamic Balance in Athletes With and Without Intellectual Disabilities.Brain and behavior · 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical tests for the assessment of postural balance in people with intellectual disability have been the most commonly used single or multi-item tests, but some tests have been developed, such as the BESTest. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the test-retest reliability and limits of agreement of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) in young people with intellectual disabilities. A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted with 65 young people (ages 16-25 years) with intellectual disability. The participants completed the BESTest (27 items) twice. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and standard error of measurement (SEM) were calculated to determine the test-retest reliability of the BESTest. The BESTest overall scores' test-retest reliability was rated as excellent (≥ 0.75). Stability limits/verticality and reactive are fair to good (≥ 0.40- < 0.75). Biomechanical constraints, transitions and anticipatory movements, sensory orientation, and gait stability were excellent (≥ 0.75). Current evidence shows that young people with intellectual disabilities have impaired postural balance. However, there appears to be a lack of assessment tools that reliably evaluate the postural balance of this population. The results from this investigation show that BESTest provides "excellent reliability" (≥ 0.75) to assess postural balance in young people with intellectual disability.
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.