ArticleScientific reports2026
Distinct correlations between clinical and laboratory-based instrumented balance measures in individuals with multiple sclerosis: a cross-sectional study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multiple sclerosis (MS) frequently leads to balance impairments and an increased risk of falls. Because laboratory-derived stability metrics are rarely feasible in clinical routine, clinicians commonly rely on functional balance assessments. This exploratory cross-sectional study examined associations between six clinical balance tests (DGI, BBS, TUG, Mini-BESTest, SSST, CTSIB) and laboratory-derived measures of static and dynamic balance, including margin of stability (MoS), whole-body angular momentum (WBAM), and center of pressure (CoP) in 30 people with MS (EDSS 3.6 ± 1.1). Patients completed 3D gait analysis, force-plate posturography, and clinical tests. Spearman correlations and nonparametric bootstrapping were used to estimate associations and 95% confidence intervals. Clinical test scores generally showed moderate-to-strong correlations with CoP measures, with the strongest association observed for the BBS (r = 0.76). For dynamic outcomes, larger MoS values were associated with poorer clinical test performance, most prominently for the TUG, suggesting that MoS may partly reflect compensatory gait strategies rather than superior balance capacity. Frontal-plane WBAM showed its strongest correlation with the TUG (r = 0.67). In conclusion, the BBS was most closely associated with static balance, whereas the TUG showed the most consistent associations across selected static and dynamic laboratory-derived balance measures.
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.