Balance-Related Outcome Measures of Acquired Brain Injury Patients in a Student-Led Onsite Physical Therapy Clinic: A Retrospective Records Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Title: Balance-Related Outcome Measures of Acquired Brain Injury Patients in a Student-Led Onsite Physical Therapy Clinic: A Retrospective Records Review\nAuthors: Parke Humphrey, SPT; Corey Kaleshnik, SPT; Lauren Wilson, SPT; Ann Wilson, PT, MEd, GCS\nAffiliation(s): 1. Physical Therapy Program, University of Puget Sound\nPurpose: Individuals with Acquired Brain Injury (ABI) often have balance impairments. Interventions targeting these impairments may improve balance and thus increase overall societal participation. The purpose of this review was to identify the types of balance-related outcome measures used to assess balance impairments in patients with ABI in a student-led onsite physical therapy clinic.\nSubjects: 13 individuals with an ABI receiving care at a student-run clinic.\nMaterials & Methods: 23 records were selected for this review; however, only 13 of these met inclusion criteria. 12 subjects had a primary diagnosis of CVA and 1 subject had a primary diagnosis of TBI. The average number of balance measures per subject was 2.25 with all subjects having at least one measure taken. The mean age of the subjects was 59.8 years with a range of 35 to 85 years. The mean amount of time since ABI onset to the episode of care was 5.2 years with a range of 8 months to 21 years and a standard deviation of 4.8 years. The mean number of visits for our subjects in each episode of care was 12.4 with a range of 4 to 19 visits and a standard deviation of 4.9. The named balance measures we evaluated were the Berg Balance Scale, Dynamic Gait Index, Timed Up and Go, and the Mini-BESTest. Additionally there were subjects that were evaluated based on general static and dynamic balance.\nResults: The most commonly used recognized outcome measures were the Berg Balance Scale (N=8), Dynamic Gait Index (N=3), Timed up and Go (N=2) and the Mini-BESTest (N=2). In addition 8 records identified that either static or dynamic balance or both were assessed using other methods (N=8). Of the 13 subjects, 9 improved by a score greater than or equal to the MDC or MCID.\nConclusions: Although the majority of student therapists are using validated measures to assess balance, a number are assessing balance in other ways that make it difficult to determine which components of balance are being assessed or how successful the targeted interventions were. Despite this, meaningful change was seen in 69.2% (N=9) of subjects that were evaluated with recognized outcome measures.\nClinical Relevance: Meaningful change can be seen in patients with ABI who may be several years out from their original injury in relatively short episodes of care or with infrequent visits. While general balance measures might be appropriate to help inform a therapist’s decision-making process to work on specific deficits, this review highlights the importance of also including a named outcome measure to detect significant changes across many case studies.\nReferences\n1. What is the Difference Between an Acquired Brain Injury and a Traumatic Brain Injury. Brain Injury Association of America website. http://www.biausa.org/FAQRetrieve.aspx?ID=43913. Updated 2014. Accessed 8 November 2014.\n2. Caeyenberghs K, Leemans A, Geurts M, Taymans T, Vander Linden C, Smits-Engelsman BC, Sunaert S, Swinnen SP. Brain-behavior relationships in young traumatic brain injury patients: fractional anisotropy measures are highly correlated with dynamic visuomotor tracking performance. Neuropsychologia 2010 Apr;48(5):1472-82. Doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.01.017.\n3. Hoffer ME, Balough BJ, Gottshall KR. Posttraumatic balance disorders. Int Tinnitus J. 2007;13(1):69-72.\n4. Perry SB, Woollard J, Little S, Shroyer K. Relationships among measures of balance, gait, and community integration in people with brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil 2014;29(2):117-124. doi:10.1097/HTR.0b013e3182864f2f.\n5. Sartor-Glittenberg C, Brickner L. A multidimensional physical therapy program for individuals with cerebellar ataxia secondary to traumatic brain injury: a case series. Physiother Theory Pract 2014;30(2):138-148. doi:10.3109/09593985.2013.819952.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,012 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».