Kavita Venkataraman1, Michelle Morgan2, Kristopher A Amis3, Lawrence R Landerman2, Gerald C Koh4, Kevin Caves5, Helen Hoenig6. 1. Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore and National University Health System, Singapore. Electronic address: kavita_v@nuhs.edu.sg. 2. Center on Aging, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. 3. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Service, Durham Veterans Administration Medical Center, Durham, NC. 4. Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore and National University Health System, Singapore. 5. Speech and Audiology, Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC. 6. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Service, Durham Veterans Administration Medical Center, Durham, NC; Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare Berg Balance Scale (BBS) rating using videos with differing transmission characteristics with direct in-person rating. DESIGN: Repeated-measures study for the assessment of the BBS in 8 configurations: in person, high-definition video with slow motion review, standard-definition videos with varying bandwidths and frame rates (768 kilobytes per second [kbps] videos at 8, 15, and 30 frames per second [fps], 30 fps videos at 128, 384, and 768 kbps). SETTING: Medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with limitations (N=45) in ≥1 of 3 specific aspects of motor function: fine motor coordination, gross motor coordination, and gait and balance. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Ability to rate the BBS in person and using videos with differing bandwidths and frame rates in frontal and lateral views. RESULTS: Compared with in-person rating (7%), 18% (P=.29) of high-definition videos and 37% (P=.03) of standard-definition videos could not be rated. Interrater reliability for the high-definition videos was .96 (95% confidence interval, .94-.97). Rating failure proportions increased from 20% in videos with the highest bandwidth to 60% (P<.001) in videos with the lowest bandwidth, with no significant differences in proportions across frame rate categories. Both frontal and lateral views were critical for successful rating using videos, with 60% to 70% (P<.001) of videos unable to be rated on a single view. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is some loss of information when using videos to rate the BBS compared to in-person ratings, it is feasible to reliably rate the BBS remotely in standard clinical spaces. However, optimal video rating requires frontal and lateral views for each assessment, high-definition video with high bandwidth, and the ability to carry out slow motion review.
OBJECTIVE: To compare Berg Balance Scale (BBS) rating using videos with differing transmission characteristics with direct in-person rating. DESIGN: Repeated-measures study for the assessment of the BBS in 8 configurations: in person, high-definition video with slow motion review, standard-definition videos with varying bandwidths and frame rates (768 kilobytes per second [kbps] videos at 8, 15, and 30 frames per second [fps], 30 fps videos at 128, 384, and 768 kbps). SETTING: Medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with limitations (N=45) in ≥1 of 3 specific aspects of motor function: fine motor coordination, gross motor coordination, and gait and balance. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Ability to rate the BBS in person and using videos with differing bandwidths and frame rates in frontal and lateral views. RESULTS: Compared with in-person rating (7%), 18% (P=.29) of high-definition videos and 37% (P=.03) of standard-definition videos could not be rated. Interrater reliability for the high-definition videos was .96 (95% confidence interval, .94-.97). Rating failure proportions increased from 20% in videos with the highest bandwidth to 60% (P<.001) in videos with the lowest bandwidth, with no significant differences in proportions across frame rate categories. Both frontal and lateral views were critical for successful rating using videos, with 60% to 70% (P<.001) of videos unable to be rated on a single view. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is some loss of information when using videos to rate the BBS compared to in-person ratings, it is feasible to reliably rate the BBS remotely in standard clinical spaces. However, optimal video rating requires frontal and lateral views for each assessment, high-definition video with high bandwidth, and the ability to carry out slow motion review.
Authors: Dan Gillespie; Crystal MacLellan; Martin Ferguson-Pell; Andrea Taeger; Patricia J Manns Journal: Physiother Can Date: 2021 Impact factor: 1.039