ArticlePloS one2026
Diagnostic accuracy of the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest) in screening for fall risk among individuals with vestibular disorders.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vestibular disorders significantly impair postural stability and elevate fall risk, necessitating the use of validated assessment tools. While the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest) is a comprehensive measure of balance, diagnostic cut-off scores tailored to the vestibular population remain poorly defined. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the Mini-BESTest in identifying fall risk among individuals with vestibular disorders. Forty-two participants underwent assessment using the Mini-BESTest, 4-Meter Walk Test (4MWT), and Timed Up and Go (TUG) test. Fall risk was classified using a dual-criteria approach: (1) fall history and severity (e.g., injury, frequency, and frailty) and (2) physical performance benchmarks on the 4MWT and TUG. Participants were subsequently categorized into low or intermediate-to-high fall risk groups. Accuracy was determined via receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. The results yielded an Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.69, indicating poor-to-modest discriminatory ability. At the optimal cut-off score of ≤ 23, the scale demonstrated high sensitivity (92.3%) and low specificity (44.8%), resulting in a positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 1.67 and a negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of 0.17. Exploratory subscore analysis revealed that only the reactive postural control domain provided significant discriminatory trends under bootstrap analysis (95% CI: 0.516-0.823). These results suggest that while the comprehensive total score of Mini-BESTest remains the necessary standard for primary risk stratification due to the scale's validated unidimensional design, reactive postural control performance represents a key underlying physiological driver of instability in this population. Recognizing this specific domain impairment can better assist clinicians in tailoring targeted, individualized therapeutic interventions during vestibular rehabilitation.
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.