SynthesisPloS one2025
The balance evaluation systems test (BESTest), mini-BESTest and brief-BESTest as clinical tools to assess balance control across different populations: A reliability generalization meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Balance Assessment Using Gamified Digital Technology in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Mixed Methods Validation Study and Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR serious games · 2026Article
- Validation of the Czech adaptation of Mini-BESTest into clinical practice.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2026Article
- Opioid Use and Prescription Opioid Use Disorder: Biopsychosocial Characterisation of a Clinical Chronic Pain Cohort.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2025Article
- Criterion-related validity of self-screening using the KOJI AWARENESS™ test for range of motion and strength in healthy participants.PloS one · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) and two abbreviated versions, Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest are used to assess functioning of balance control systems. Its reliability across different populations remains to be determined.
objectiveThe present study followed reliability generalization procedures to estimate an average internal consistency and inter and intra-rater reliability for the BESTest, Mini-BESTest and Brief-BEStest. In this study, the heterogeneity of reliability coefficients in each instrument is evaluated. If heterogeneity is significant, a moderator analysis is performed to identify the characteristic which explains such variability.
methodsA search of the PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus and CINAHL databases was carried out to February 10th 2024. Two reviewers independently selected empirical studies published in English or Spanish that applied the BESTest, Mini-BESTest and/or Brief-BESTest and reported any reliability coefficient and/or internal consistency with data at hand.
resultsSixty-four studies reported any reliability estimate BESTest, Mini-BESTest and/or Brief-BESTest scores (N. = 5225 participants). Mean Cronbach alpha for the Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest (total score = 0.92) indicating no variability in estimated internal consistency. Likewise, no variability was obtained for inter-rater and intra-rater mean agreement of the BESTest (ICC = 0.97; 0.94), Mini-BESTest (ICC = 0.95; 0.94) and Brief-BESTest (ICC = 0.96; 0.95). Mean scores, standard deviation of scores, mean age, gender, population type, mean history of the disorder, disease, raters´ experience, number of raters, rater formation, continent of study and design type presented statistically significant relationships with ICC and/or Cronbach´s alpha for BESTest and the two abbreviated versions.
conclusionsThe mean intraclass correlations and Cronbach alpha obtained for BESTest, Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest exhibited an excellent inter and intra-rater reliability and internal consistency. The average reliability obtained three scales adequate to be applied for screening balance problems in different populations. Some continuous and categorical moderator variables increase reliability and internal consistency of these scales.
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.