Observational studySpinal cord2024
Reliability of the Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest for assessing patients with incomplete spinal cord injury.
Observational study in Spinal cord, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated assessment of balance function based on a lightweight end-to-end multimodal deep learning framework: predicting Mini-BESTest scores from center of pressure signals in a single stance condition.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Responsiveness and Minimal Important Change of the Mini- and Brief-Balance Evaluation Systems Tests in People with Incomplete Cervical Spinal Cord Injury: A Prospective Cohort Study.Neurology international · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designSingle institution observational study.
objectivesTo investigate the ceiling and floor effects of the Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest), and Brief-BESTest, as well as to determine the intra- and inter-rater reliabilities and minimal detectable change (MDC) of the Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest in patients with acute and subacute incomplete cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) classified as AIS D.
settingAdvanced critical care center of our university hospital.
methodsTwenty patients with incomplete cervical SCI who could stand without assistance were recruited. The floor and ceiling effects were evaluated by plotting histograms from the distribution of scores on the BBS, Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest, and calculating skewness. The Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest were evaluated and videotaped simultaneously, and intra- and inter-rater reliabilities were assessed. The MDC was also calculated.
resultsThe skewness of the BBS was -1.57, and the full score was 35%, indicating a ceiling effect. However, no ceiling or floor effect was observed for the Mini-BESTest and the Brief-BESTest. Intraclass correlation coefficients for intra-rater and inter-rater reliabilities were 0.98 and 0.97 for the Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest, respectively. Individual item reliability was moderate or better for the Mini-BESTest and excellent or better for the Brief-BESTest. The MDC of total scores ranged 3.14-3.84 and 2.92-3.60 for the Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest, respectively.
conclusionsThe Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest are reliable assessment tools for patients with acute and subacute incomplete SCI classified as AIS D. Clarified error ranges aid in estimating the treatment effect on balance abilities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39271798What 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.