ArticleActa neurologica Belgica2024
Discriminative ability of the original and short form of the Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale and its individual items for falls in people with multiple sclerosis.
Article in Acta neurologica Belgica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development and Usability of MSafe: A Fall Risk Application for Older Adults with Multiple Sclerosis.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBalance confidence is an essential component of fall risk assessment in persons with multiple sclerosis (pwMS).
aimsThe aims of this cross-sectional study were to 1) investigate the ability of the 16-item Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale (ABC-16), 6-item Activities-specific Balance Confidence scale (ABC-6), and each item of the ABC-16 for distinguishing fallers and 2) determine cutoff scores for these scales to discriminate fallers and non-fallers in pwMS.
methodsOne hundred and fifty-six participants [fallers/non-fallers: 60 (38.5%)/96 (61.5%), median EDSS: 1.5] were enrolled. Balance confidence was assessed using the ABC-16 and ABC-6. The self-reported number of falls in the past three months was recorded. Descriptive assessments, including walking, balance, and cognition were performed. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic analyses were conducted to estimate the sensitivities and specificities of the ABC-16 and ABC-6.
resultsBoth the ABC-16 (AUC: 0.85) and ABC-6 (AUC: 0.84) had the discriminative ability for falls. Each item of the ABC-16 scale was a significantly related to falls [odds ratio (OR) range: 1.38 to 1.89]. Items 8 and 10 had the highest odds ratio (OR: 1.85; 95%CI: 1.47-2.33, OR: 1.89; 95%CI: 1.49-2.40; respectively). We found cutoff scores of ≤ 70 of 100 (sensitivity: 71.67, specificity: 86.46) and ≤ 65/100 (sensitivity: 76.67, specificity: 79.17) in discrimination between fallers and non-fallers for the ABC-16 and ABC-6, respectively.
conclusionBoth original and short forms of the ABC scale are an efficient tool for discriminating fallers and non-fallers in pwMS. Although all items are related to falls, outdoor walking activities have the strongest associations with falls than other items.
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.