Suppr超能文献

平衡评估系统测试和躯干控制测量量表在成人脊柱畸形中的可靠性。

Reliability of the balance evaluation systems test and trunk control measurement scale in adult spinal deformity.

机构信息

Institute for Orthopaedic Research and Training (IORT), Department of Development and Regeneration, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2019 Aug 26;14(8):e0221489. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221489. eCollection 2019.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To test the reliability of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) and Trunk Control Measurement Scale (TCMS) between sessions and raters in the adult spinal deformity (ASD) population.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Up to now evaluation in ASD was mainly based on static radiographic parameters. Recently literature showed that dynamic balance was a better predictor of health-related quality of life than radiographic parameters, stressing the importance of balance assessment. However, to the best of our knowledge, reliability of balance assessment tools has not yet been investigated in the ASD population.

METHODS

Twenty ASD patients participated in this study. Ten patients were included in the test-retest study, including repeated measurements. Ten patients were measured once, simultaneously but independently by three raters. Each participant performed two balance scales, namely the BESTest and the TCMS. Statistical analysis consisted of intra class correlations (ICC) on scale- and subscale level, and kappa scores on item-level. Cronbach's alpha on total scores, standard errors of measurement (SEM), smallest detectable differences and percentages of agreement were also calculated. Bland-altman plots were created to investigate systematic bias.

RESULTS

ICC scores between sessions and raters for TCMS (0.76 and 0.88) and BESTest (0.90 and 0.94) total scores were good to excellent. SEM's between sessions and raters were also low for total scores on TCMS (1.66 and 2.35) and BESTest (2.99 and 2.32). However, on subscale- and item-level reliability decreased and ceiling effects were observed. No systematic bias was observed between sessions and raters.

CONCLUSION

BESTest and TCMS showed to be reliable tools to measure balance in ASD on scale-level. However, on subscale- and item-level reliability decreased and ceiling effects were observed. Therefore, the question arises if there is need for an ASD-specific balance scale.

摘要

目的

测试平衡评估系统测试(BESTest)和躯干控制测量量表(TCMS)在成人脊柱畸形(ASD)人群中组内和组间评估者间的可靠性。

背景资料概要

到目前为止,ASD 的评估主要基于静态放射学参数。最近的文献表明,动态平衡是健康相关生活质量的更好预测指标,而不是放射学参数,这强调了平衡评估的重要性。然而,据我们所知,平衡评估工具的可靠性尚未在 ASD 人群中进行研究。

方法

本研究纳入了 20 名 ASD 患者。10 名患者纳入测试-重测研究,包括重复测量。10 名患者由 3 名评估者同时独立进行测量。每位参与者进行两项平衡测试,即 BESTest 和 TCMS。统计分析包括量表和亚量表水平的组内相关系数(ICC),以及项目水平的kappa 评分。还计算了总评分的克朗巴赫 α、测量标准误差(SEM)、最小可检测差异和一致性百分比。创建 Bland-altman 图以研究系统偏差。

结果

TCMS(0.76 和 0.88)和 BESTest(0.90 和 0.94)总评分的组内和组间 ICC 评分良好至优秀。TCMS(1.66 和 2.35)和 BESTest(2.99 和 2.32)总评分的组内和组间 SEM 也较低。然而,在亚量表和项目水平上,可靠性降低,并且观察到天花板效应。在组内和组间评估者之间未观察到系统偏差。

结论

BESTest 和 TCMS 是测量 ASD 平衡的可靠工具,在量表水平上。然而,在亚量表和项目水平上,可靠性降低,并且观察到天花板效应。因此,出现了一个问题,即是否需要针对 ASD 的特定平衡量表。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/677a/6709918/d45516359741/pone.0221489.g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验