ArticleFrontiers in neurology2024
Assessing the fall risk with Stay Independent Questionnaire in people with stroke.
Article in Frontiers in neurology, 2024. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Stay Independent Questionnaire (C-SIQ) in evaluating individuals with stroke. Design: The study adopted a cross-sectional design. Setting: The research was conducted at a university-based neurorehabilitation center. Participants: The study included a total of 100 individuals with stroke and 49 healthy older adults. Methods: On Day 1, both individuals with stroke and healthy older adults underwent assessments using the C-SIQ. Additionally, individuals with stroke were evaluated using the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Lower Extremity (FMA-LE), ankle dorsiflexion and plantarflexion strength, Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Timed-Up and Go Test (TUG), 10-meter walk test (10 mWT), Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale, Stroke Impact Scale (SIS), and Community Integration Measure (CIM). On Day 2 (7 days after Day 1), individuals with stroke were reassessed using the C-SIQ. Results: Individuals with stroke exhibited a higher C-SIQ score (6.22 ± 2.98) compared to healthy older adults (1.59 ± 2.01). The C-SIQ demonstrated good test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.847) and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.709). The Minimal Detectable Change in C-SIQ score was calculated as 3.05. Exploratory factor analysis revealed four factors with eigenvalues ≥1.0, explaining 57.17% of the total variance. The C-SIQ score exhibited significant correlations (ranging from -0.553 to 0.362) with completion times of the TUG and 10 mWT, FMA-LE, BBS, ABC, SIS, CIM score, paretic ankle dorsiflexion strength, and 6 mWT distance. A cut-off score of 2.5 was identified as the optimal threshold for discriminating fall risk between individuals with stroke and healthy controls. Conclusion: The C-SIQ emerges as a reliable and valid tool for evaluating fall risk in individuals with stroke, showcasing strong correlations with key measures such as TUG times, 10 mWT, FMA-LE, BBS, ABC, SIS, CIM score, paretic ankle dorsiflexion strength, and 6 mWT distance. The C-SIQ demonstrated good test-retest reliability and internal consistency. Exploratory factor analysis revealed that this is a four factors assessment tool. The identified cut-off score of 2.5 effectively distinguishes fall risk between individuals with stroke and healthy controls.
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.