ArticleActa neurologica Belgica2025
Reliability and validity of the community balance and mobility scale in individuals with multiple sclerosis.
Article in Acta neurologica Belgica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
aimsThis study aims to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Community Balance and Mobility Scale (CB&M) in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS).
methodsA total of 65 PwMS (Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) ≤ 5.5) were included in the study. Test-retest, internal consistency (item-total score correlation, Cronbach's alpha coefficient) intra-rater, and inter-rater reliability were investigated for the reliability of the CB&M. For intra-rater and inter-rater reliability, CB&M measurements of 34 PwMS were videotaped. The validity of the CB&M was assessed through criterion (predictive and concurrent validity) and construct validity. Construct validity was evaluated using hypothesis testing which included examining correlations with EDSS, Timed Up and Go Test (TUG), and Dynamic Gait Index (DGI).
resultsTest-retest reliability demonstrated a good to excellent correlation (ICC = 0.995, p < 0.001). Cronbach's alpha was 0.971 (p < 0.001). Intra-rater (ICC = 0.993, p < 0.001) and inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.986, p < 0.001) of the CB&M were also good to excellent. Cohen's kappa range values of the scale vary between 0.958 - 0.665, and the percentage agreement varies between 97% and 75%. For the convergent validity of CB&M, strong correlations were observed with EDSS (r=-0.831, p < 0.001), TUG (r=-0.854, p < 0.001), and DGI (r = 0.865, p < 0.001). Additionally, the CB&M demonstrated an excellent correlation with the BBS (r = 0.907, p < 0.001). The scale exhibited no floor-ceiling effect.
conclusionCB&M is a reliable and valid tool for assessing balance and mobility in PwMS and offers significant advantages for evaluating balance in PwMS, as it provides comprehensive information about the balance and mobility requirements essential for community living.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39704738What 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.