Gillian Quinn1, Laura Comber1, Rose Galvin1, Susan Coote1. 1. Department of Clinical Therapies, Faculty of Education and Health Sciences, Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the ability of clinical measures of balance to distinguish fallers from non-fallers and to determine their predictive validity in identifying those at risk of falls. DATA SOURCES: AMED, CINAHL, Medline, Scopus, PubMed Central and Google Scholar. First search: July 2015. Final search: October 2017. REVIEW METHODS: Inclusion criteria were studies of adults with a definite multiple sclerosis diagnosis, a clinical balance assessment and method of falls recording. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 scale and the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Statistical analysis was conducted for the cross-sectional studies using Review Manager 5. The mean difference with 95% confidence interval in balance outcomes between fallers and non-fallers was used as the mode of analysis. RESULTS: We included 33 studies (19 cross-sectional, 5 randomised controlled trials, 9 prospective) with a total of 3901 participants, of which 1917 (49%) were classified as fallers. The balance measures most commonly reported were the Berg Balance Scale, Timed Up and Go and Falls Efficacy Scale International. Meta-analysis demonstrated fallers perform significantly worse than non-fallers on all measures analysed except the Timed Up and Go Cognitive ( p < 0.05), but discriminative ability of the measures is commonly not reported. Of those reported, the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve value (0.92), but without reporting corresponding measures of clinical utility. CONCLUSION: Clinical measures of balance differ significantly between fallers and non-fallers but have poor predictive ability for falls risk in people with multiple sclerosis.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the ability of clinical measures of balance to distinguish fallers from non-fallers and to determine their predictive validity in identifying those at risk of falls. DATA SOURCES: AMED, CINAHL, Medline, Scopus, PubMed Central and Google Scholar. First search: July 2015. Final search: October 2017. REVIEW METHODS: Inclusion criteria were studies of adults with a definite multiple sclerosis diagnosis, a clinical balance assessment and method of falls recording. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 scale and the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Statistical analysis was conducted for the cross-sectional studies using Review Manager 5. The mean difference with 95% confidence interval in balance outcomes between fallers and non-fallers was used as the mode of analysis. RESULTS: We included 33 studies (19 cross-sectional, 5 randomised controlled trials, 9 prospective) with a total of 3901 participants, of which 1917 (49%) were classified as fallers. The balance measures most commonly reported were the Berg Balance Scale, Timed Up and Go and Falls Efficacy Scale International. Meta-analysis demonstrated fallers perform significantly worse than non-fallers on all measures analysed except the Timed Up and Go Cognitive ( p < 0.05), but discriminative ability of the measures is commonly not reported. Of those reported, the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve value (0.92), but without reporting corresponding measures of clinical utility. CONCLUSION: Clinical measures of balance differ significantly between fallers and non-fallers but have poor predictive ability for falls risk in people with multiple sclerosis.
Authors: Erin M Edwards; Deborah A Kegelmeyer; Anne D Kloos; Manon Nitta; Danya Raza; Deborah S Nichols-Larsen; Nora E Fritz Journal: Mult Scler Int Date: 2020-09-08
Authors: Valerie J Block; Erica A Pitsch; Arpita Gopal; Chao Zhao; Mark J Pletcher; Gregory M Marcus; Jeffrey E Olgin; Jill Hollenbach; Riley Bove; Bruce A C Cree; Jeffrey M Gelfand Journal: J Neurol Date: 2021-08-17 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Brett M Meyer; Lindsey J Tulipani; Reed D Gurchiek; Dakota A Allen; Lukas Adamowicz; Dale Larie; Andrew J Solomon; Nick Cheney; Ryan S McGinnis Journal: IEEE J Biomed Health Inform Date: 2021-05-11 Impact factor: 5.772