MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031290524 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0120568

Recommendations for a Core Outcome Set for Measuring Standing Balance in Adult Populations: A Consensus-Based Approach

2015· article· en· W2031290524 on OpenAlexafffund
Kathryn M. Sibley, Tracey Howe, Sarah E Lamb, Stephen R. Lord, Brian E. Maki, Debra J. Rose, Vicky Scott, Liza Stathokostas, Sharon E. Straus, Susan Jaglal

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaMinistry of HealthUniversity of ManitobaUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchToronto Rehabilitation InstituteNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsBalance (ability)Berg Balance ScaleGold standard (test)MedicineSet (abstract data type)PsychologyPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Standing balance is imperative for mobility and avoiding falls. Use of an excessive number of standing balance measures has limited the synthesis of balance intervention data and hampered consistent clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To develop recommendations for a core outcome set (COS) of standing balance measures for research and practice among adults. METHODOLOGY: A combination of scoping reviews, literature appraisal, anonymous voting and face-to-face meetings with fourteen invited experts from a range of disciplines with international recognition in balance measurement and falls prevention. Consensus was sought over three rounds using pre-established criteria. DATA SOURCES: The scoping review identified 56 existing standing balance measures validated in adult populations with evidence of use in the past five years, and these were considered for inclusion in the COS. RESULTS: Fifteen measures were excluded after the first round of scoring and a further 36 after round two. Five measures were considered in round three. Two measures reached consensus for recommendation, and the expert panel recommended that at a minimum, either the Berg Balance Scale or Mini Balance Evaluation Systems Test be used when measuring standing balance in adult populations. LIMITATIONS: Inclusion of two measures in the COS may increase the feasibility of potential uptake, but poses challenges for data synthesis. Adoption of the standing balance COS does not constitute a comprehensive balance assessment for any population, and users should include additional validated measures as appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: The absence of a gold standard for measuring standing balance has contributed to the proliferation of outcome measures. These recommendations represent an important first step towards greater standardization in the assessment and measurement of this critical skill and will inform clinical research and practice internationally.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.379
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.620
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.621
Threshold uncertainty score0.765

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3790.620
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.024
Bibliometrics0.0300.020
Science and technology studies0.0060.007
Scholarly communication0.0150.021
Open science0.0190.017
Research integrity0.0210.025
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.008

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.592
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.140 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
DomainMethods
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations85
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207