Observational studyJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2025
Validity and Reliability of the Berg Balance Scale in Different Tele-Assessment Methods in Patients With Stroke.
Observational study in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05263063 (Comparison of Face-to-face, Synchronous and Asynchronous Use of Methods Used for Balance Assessment), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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.
Comparison of Face-to-face, Synchronous and Asynchronous Use of Methods Used for Balance Assessment
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Optimal exercise modalities for post-intervention motor function changes in stroke survivors: a pairwise and network meta-analysis.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2025Pooled it
- Trial
- Remote Assessment of Physical Function and Physical Activity in Adults With Autism Spectrum Disorder: Protocol for Feasibility, Validity, and Reliability Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Narrative Review on Post-Stroke Outcomes Through Recognition of Frailty, Sarcopenia, and Palliative Care Needs.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Tele-assessment of Mobility and Balance is Reliable and Safe for Individuals with Chronic Stroke - A Guideline for a Systematic Physical Evaluation.International journal of telerehabilitation · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
AIMS AND
objectiveBalance evaluation is essential for determining treatment and its effectiveness in stroke patients. Considering the widespread use of telehealth services, it is important to evaluate the applicability of balance scales for teleassessment. The aim in this study was to investigate the reliability and validity of the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) applied using synchronous and asynchronous teleassessment methods.
methodTeleassessments were performed by two physiotherapists. Synchronous assessments were conducted online in real time using the application Zoom, while asynchronous assessments involved patients recording videos according to a reference evaluation video sent to them. All tests were repeated 10 days later to assess intrarater reliability.
resultsThirty-six stroke patients (mean age 55.9 ± 9.5 years) participated in the study. Both synchronous and asynchronous teleassessments of the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) demonstrated excellent interrater reliability, with ICC values of 0.989 for synchronous and 0.997 for asynchronous assessments. Intrarater reliability was also high, with ICCs ranging from 0.982 to 0.997 across raters and methods. Regarding concurrent validity, synchronous teleassessment BBS scores showed a strong correlation with face-to-face BBS (r = 0.970) and Timed Balance Test (TBT) scores (r = 0.901), while asynchronous assessments also demonstrated strong correlations (BBS: r = 0.945; TBT: r = 0.885). Correlations with postural sway parameters were moderate, ranging from r =-0.40 to -0.54.
conclusionOur findings suggest that synchronous and asynchronous teleassessment of the BBS may be a viable alternative to face-to-face assessments. However, further research with larger samples is needed to support these findings and increase their generalizability.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05263063.
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.