Cargando…
WHICH BALANCE EVALUATION SYSTEMS TEST SECTIONS BEST DISTINGUISH LEVELS OF POST-STROKE FUNCTIONAL WALKING STATUS?
OBJECTIVE: To determine which sections of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) distinguish levels of post-stroke functional walking status and to establish their cut-off scores. DESIGN: A retrospective cross-sectional study. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The BESTest was administered to 87 stroke pa...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Foundation for Rehabilitation Information
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8638744/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34486068 http://dx.doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2870 |
_version_ | 1784609001263071232 |
---|---|
author | MIYATA, Kazuhiro HASEGAWA, Satoshi IWAMOTO, Hiroki OTANI, Tomohiro KAIZU, Yoichi SHINOHARA, Tomoyuki USUDA, Shigeru |
author_facet | MIYATA, Kazuhiro HASEGAWA, Satoshi IWAMOTO, Hiroki OTANI, Tomohiro KAIZU, Yoichi SHINOHARA, Tomoyuki USUDA, Shigeru |
author_sort | MIYATA, Kazuhiro |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: To determine which sections of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) distinguish levels of post-stroke functional walking status and to establish their cut-off scores. DESIGN: A retrospective cross-sectional study. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The BESTest was administered to 87 stroke patients who were able to walk without physical assistance upon discharge from the hospital. Subjects were divided into 3 functional walking status groups: namely, household ambulators, limited community ambulators, and unlimited community ambulators. The receiver operating characteristic curve was determined and the cut-off score and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of each section calculated. RESULTS: In the comparison of household and limited community ambulators, the accuracies of all BESTest sections were moderate (AUROC>0.7), and the cut-off scores were 36.1–78.6%. In the comparison of limited and unlimited community ambulators, one section (stability in gait) had high accuracy (AUROC=0.908, cut-off scores=73.8%) and 3 sections (biomechanical constraints, anticipatory postural adjustments, and postural response) had moderate accuracy (AUROC=0.812–0.834, cut-off scores=75.0–83.4%). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that different sections of the BESTest had different abilities to discriminate levels of post-stroke functional walking status, and identified cut-off values for targeted improvement. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8638744 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Foundation for Rehabilitation Information |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-86387442022-02-08 WHICH BALANCE EVALUATION SYSTEMS TEST SECTIONS BEST DISTINGUISH LEVELS OF POST-STROKE FUNCTIONAL WALKING STATUS? MIYATA, Kazuhiro HASEGAWA, Satoshi IWAMOTO, Hiroki OTANI, Tomohiro KAIZU, Yoichi SHINOHARA, Tomoyuki USUDA, Shigeru J Rehabil Med Original Report OBJECTIVE: To determine which sections of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) distinguish levels of post-stroke functional walking status and to establish their cut-off scores. DESIGN: A retrospective cross-sectional study. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The BESTest was administered to 87 stroke patients who were able to walk without physical assistance upon discharge from the hospital. Subjects were divided into 3 functional walking status groups: namely, household ambulators, limited community ambulators, and unlimited community ambulators. The receiver operating characteristic curve was determined and the cut-off score and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of each section calculated. RESULTS: In the comparison of household and limited community ambulators, the accuracies of all BESTest sections were moderate (AUROC>0.7), and the cut-off scores were 36.1–78.6%. In the comparison of limited and unlimited community ambulators, one section (stability in gait) had high accuracy (AUROC=0.908, cut-off scores=73.8%) and 3 sections (biomechanical constraints, anticipatory postural adjustments, and postural response) had moderate accuracy (AUROC=0.812–0.834, cut-off scores=75.0–83.4%). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that different sections of the BESTest had different abilities to discriminate levels of post-stroke functional walking status, and identified cut-off values for targeted improvement. Foundation for Rehabilitation Information 2021-09-06 /pmc/articles/PMC8638744/ /pubmed/34486068 http://dx.doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2870 Text en © 2021 Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Report MIYATA, Kazuhiro HASEGAWA, Satoshi IWAMOTO, Hiroki OTANI, Tomohiro KAIZU, Yoichi SHINOHARA, Tomoyuki USUDA, Shigeru WHICH BALANCE EVALUATION SYSTEMS TEST SECTIONS BEST DISTINGUISH LEVELS OF POST-STROKE FUNCTIONAL WALKING STATUS? |
title | WHICH BALANCE EVALUATION SYSTEMS TEST SECTIONS BEST DISTINGUISH LEVELS OF POST-STROKE FUNCTIONAL WALKING STATUS? |
title_full | WHICH BALANCE EVALUATION SYSTEMS TEST SECTIONS BEST DISTINGUISH LEVELS OF POST-STROKE FUNCTIONAL WALKING STATUS? |
title_fullStr | WHICH BALANCE EVALUATION SYSTEMS TEST SECTIONS BEST DISTINGUISH LEVELS OF POST-STROKE FUNCTIONAL WALKING STATUS? |
title_full_unstemmed | WHICH BALANCE EVALUATION SYSTEMS TEST SECTIONS BEST DISTINGUISH LEVELS OF POST-STROKE FUNCTIONAL WALKING STATUS? |
title_short | WHICH BALANCE EVALUATION SYSTEMS TEST SECTIONS BEST DISTINGUISH LEVELS OF POST-STROKE FUNCTIONAL WALKING STATUS? |
title_sort | which balance evaluation systems test sections best distinguish levels of post-stroke functional walking status? |
topic | Original Report |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8638744/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34486068 http://dx.doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2870 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT miyatakazuhiro whichbalanceevaluationsystemstestsectionsbestdistinguishlevelsofpoststrokefunctionalwalkingstatus AT hasegawasatoshi whichbalanceevaluationsystemstestsectionsbestdistinguishlevelsofpoststrokefunctionalwalkingstatus AT iwamotohiroki whichbalanceevaluationsystemstestsectionsbestdistinguishlevelsofpoststrokefunctionalwalkingstatus AT otanitomohiro whichbalanceevaluationsystemstestsectionsbestdistinguishlevelsofpoststrokefunctionalwalkingstatus AT kaizuyoichi whichbalanceevaluationsystemstestsectionsbestdistinguishlevelsofpoststrokefunctionalwalkingstatus AT shinoharatomoyuki whichbalanceevaluationsystemstestsectionsbestdistinguishlevelsofpoststrokefunctionalwalkingstatus AT usudashigeru whichbalanceevaluationsystemstestsectionsbestdistinguishlevelsofpoststrokefunctionalwalkingstatus |