Physical Therapy

Little is known about chronic low back pain (CLBP) in combination with widespread musculoskeletal pain (WMP).

This study examined factors that may be common to these conditions, with the objective of detecting factors that could improve the course of these diseases.

This was a prospective case control study.

A group of patients with CLBP and WMP (CLBP+WMP group, n=97) was compared with a group of individuals who were pain-free and without a history of musculoskeletal problems (control group, n=97) and with a group of patients with CLBP but without WMP (CLBP-only group, n=52). The mean age of the participants was 42.9 years (SD=8.74); 76% were women, and 24% were men.

A total of 74 variables were measured, including sociodemographic, physical, and psychosocial variables. After univariate examination for group differences and analyses of variables available for all 3 groups, logistic regression on selected factors was performed. The α level was set at .05, but was adjusted to avoid randomly significant results.

For a number of variables, significant differences among the 3 groups were observed. For regression model 1 for the CLBP+WMP and control groups, 4 out of 9 variables showed significant likelihood tests: income (lower in the WMP group), depression, anxiety, and fear-avoidance behavior. For regression model 2, 2 out of 13 variables showed significant likelihood tests: endurance capacity (more in the CLBP+WMP group) and balance capability (worse in the CLBP+WMP group). The models predicted at least 91.2% of all cases to the correct group. The regression analysis regarding the CLBP+WMP and CLBP-only groups predicted 86.7% of all cases to the correct group. Three out of 10 variables showed significant likelihood tests: high disability, fear-avoidance behavior, and number of treatments.

Some variables in testing the patients with WMP and the individuals who were pain-free were not used with the patients with CLBP only.

Patients with CLBP and WMP should be examined for indicated physical and psychosocial factors. Therapeutic management should consider them in the early stage of the disease. These findings also might apply to patients with fibromyalgia or myofascial pain.

The Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest) is a new balance assessment, but its psychometric properties have not been specifically tested in individuals with stroke.

The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability and validity of the Mini-BESTest and its accuracy in categorizing people with stroke based on fall history.

An observational measurement study with a test-retest design was conducted.

One hundred six people with chronic stroke were recruited. Intrarater reliability was evaluated by repeating the Mini-BESTest within 10 days by the same rater. The Mini-BESTest was administered by 2 independent raters to establish interrater reliability. Validity was assessed by correlating Mini-BESTest scores with scores of other balance measures (Berg Balance Scale, one-leg-standing, Functional Reach Test, and Timed “Up & Go” Test) in the stroke group and by comparing Mini-BESTest scores between the stroke group and 48 control participants, and between fallers (≥1 falls in the previous 12 months, n=25) and nonfallers (n=81) in the stroke group.

The Mini-BESTest had excellent internal consistency (Cronbach alpha=.89–.94), intrarater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [3,1]=.97), and interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [2,1]=.96). The minimal detectable change at 95% confidence interval was 3.0 points. The Mini-BESTest was strongly correlated with other balance measures. Significant differences in Mini-BESTest total scores were found between the stroke and control groups and between fallers and nonfallers in the stroke group. In terms of floor and ceiling effects, the Mini-BESTest was significantly less skewed than other balance measures, except for one-leg-standing on the nonparetic side. The Berg Balance Scale showed significantly better ability to identify fallers (positive likelihood ratio=2.6) than the Mini-BESTest (positive likelihood ratio=1.8).

The results are generalizable only to people with mild to moderate chronic stroke.

The Mini-BESTest is a reliable and valid tool for evaluating balance in people with chronic stroke.

This study examined the interrater and intrarater reliability, concurrent validity, and criterion validity of the Tinetti Mobility Test (TMT) as a fall risk screening tool in individuals with Parkinson disease (PD).

Thirty individuals with PD voluntarily participated in the study, and data from a retrospective review of 126 patient records were included.

Physical therapists and physical therapist students rated live and videotaped performances of the TMT. Tinetti Mobility Test scores were correlated with Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor scores and comfortable gait speed. The ability of the TMT to accurately assess fall risk was determined.

Interrater and intrarater reliability was good to excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient of >.80). Tinetti Mobility Test scores correlated with UPDRS motor scores (rs=−.45) and gait speed (rs=.53). The sensitivity and specificity of the TMT to identify fallers were 76% and 66%, respectively.

The TMT is a reliable and valid tool for assessing the mobility status of and fall risk for individuals with PD.

Current clinical balance assessment tools do not aim to help therapists identify the underlying postural control systems responsible for poor functional balance. By identifying the disordered systems underlying balance control, therapists can direct specific types of intervention for different types of balance problems.

The goal of this study was to develop a clinical balance assessment tool that aims to target 6 different balance control systems so that specific rehabilitation approaches can be designed for different balance deficits. This article presents the theoretical framework, interrater reliability, and preliminary concurrent validity for this new instrument, the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest).

The BESTest consists of 36 items, grouped into 6 systems: “Biomechanical Constraints,” “Stability Limits/Verticality,” “Anticipatory Postural Adjustments,” “Postural Responses,” “Sensory Orientation,” and “Stability in Gait.”

In 2 interrater trials, 22 subjects with and without balance disorders, ranging in age from 50 to 88 years, were rated concurrently on the BESTest by 19 therapists, students, and balance researchers. Concurrent validity was measured by correlation between the BESTest and balance confidence, as assessed with the Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale.

Consistent with our theoretical framework, subjects with different diagnoses scored poorly on different sections of the BESTest. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for interrater reliability for the test as a whole was .91, with the 6 section ICCs ranging from .79 to .96. The Kendall coefficient of concordance among raters ranged from .46 to 1.00 for the 36 individual items. Concurrent validity of the correlation between the BESTest and the ABC Scale was r=.636, P<.01.

Further testing is needed to determine whether: (1) the sections of the BESTest actually detect independent balance deficits, (2) other systems important for balance control should be added, and (3) a shorter version of the test is possible by eliminating redundant or insensitive items.

The BESTest is easy to learn to administer, with excellent reliability and very good validity. It is unique in allowing clinicians to determine the type of balance problems to direct specific treatments for their patients. By organizing clinical balance test items already in use, combined with new items not currently available, the BESTest is the most comprehensive clinical balance tool available and warrants further development.