Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorJácome, C
dc.contributor.authorFlores, I
dc.contributor.authorMartins, F
dc.contributor.authorCastro, C
dc.contributor.authorMcPhee, CC
dc.contributor.authorShepherd, E
dc.contributor.authorDemain, Sara
dc.contributor.authorFigueiredo, D
dc.contributor.authorMarques, A
dc.date.accessioned2019-06-06T15:56:24Z
dc.date.available2019-06-06T15:56:24Z
dc.date.issued2017-09-08
dc.identifier.issn0963-8288
dc.identifier.issn1464-5165
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/14256
dc.descriptionpeerreview_statement: The publishing and review policy for this title is described in its Aims & Scope. aims_and_scope_url: http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=aimsScope&journalCode=idre20
dc.description.abstract

PURPOSE: This study determined the validity, test-retest reliability and minimal detectable change of the balance evaluation systems test (BESTest), mini-balance evaluation systems test (Mini-BESTest) and brief-balance evaluation systems test (Brief-BESTest) in patients with end-stage renal disease. METHODS: A cross-sectional study with 74 patients with end-stage renal disease (male 66.2%; 63.9 ± 15.1 years old) was conducted. Participants were asked to report the number of falls during the previous 12 months and to complete the activity-specific balance confidence (ABC) scale. The BESTest was administered, and the Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest scores were computed based on the BESTest performance. Validity was assessed by correlating balance tests with each other and with the ABC scale. Test-retest relative reliability and agreement were explored with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) equation (2,1) and the Bland and Altman method. Minimal detectable changes at the 95% confidence level were established. RESULTS: Balance test scores were significantly correlated with each other (spearman's correlation = 0.89-0.92) and with the ABC scale (spearman's correlation = 0.49-0.59). Balance tests presented high test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.84-0.94), with no evidence of bias. Minimal detectable change values were 10.8 (expressed as a percentage 13.5%), 5.3 (23.7%) and 5.6 (34%) points for the BESTest, Mini-BESTest and Brief-BESTest, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: All tests are valid and reliable to assess balance in patients with end-stage renal disease. Nevertheless, based on the minimal detectable changes found, BESTest and Mini-BESTest may be the most recommended tests for this specific population. Implications for Rehabilitation Balance evaluation systems test (BESTest), mini-balance evaluation systems test (Mini-BESTest) and brief-balance evaluation systems test (Brief-BESTest) are reliable and valid in patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD). The minimal detectable changes of 10.8 for the BESTest, 5.3 for the Mini-BESTest and 5.6 for the Brief-BESTest can be used by clinicians to identify a true change in balance over time or in response to interventions. Based on the minimal detectable changes found, BESTest and Mini-BESTest may be the most recommended; and the selection of one of them may be based on time and equipment availability.

dc.format.extent1-6
dc.format.mediumPrint-Electronic
dc.languageen
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherInforma UK Limited
dc.subjectChronic kidney failure
dc.subjectdialysis
dc.subjectpostural balance
dc.subjectreproducibility of results
dc.subjectrisk assessment
dc.subjectAccidental Falls
dc.subjectAged
dc.subjectCross-Sectional Studies
dc.subjectDisability Evaluation
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectKidney Failure, Chronic
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectMiddle Aged
dc.subjectPhysical Therapy Modalities
dc.subjectPostural Balance
dc.subjectPsychometrics
dc.subjectReproducibility of Results
dc.subjectRisk Assessment
dc.titleValidity, reliability and minimal detectable change of the balance evaluation systems test (BESTest), mini-BESTest and brief-BESTest in patients with end-stage renal disease
dc.typejournal-article
dc.typeJournal Article
plymouth.author-urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28886676
plymouth.issue26
plymouth.volume40
plymouth.publication-statusPublished
plymouth.journalDisability and Rehabilitation
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/09638288.2017.1375034
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Faculty of Health
plymouth.organisational-group/Plymouth/Users by role
dc.publisher.placeEngland
dcterms.dateAccepted2017-08-30
dc.identifier.eissn1464-5165
dc.rights.embargoperiodNot known
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1080/09638288.2017.1375034
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserved
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2017-09-08
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


All items in PEARL are protected by copyright law.
Author manuscripts deposited to comply with open access mandates are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author.
Theme by 
Atmire NV