Reliability and Validity of the Berg Balance Scale in the Stroke Population: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: The aim of this systematic review is to assemble literature on the reliability and validity of the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) to determine its suitability as a clinical tool in patients post-stroke. Methods: Systematic searches of PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and ProQuest were completed. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were utilized. Methodological quality was assessed using the McGill Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Results: A total of 33 articles were included. The BBS was found to have excellent reliability and validity. The scores were predictive of factors contributing to patient function and performance. Fall risk was unable to be strongly predicted from scores. Conclusion: The BBS is a reliable and valid tool to assess balance and functional mobility in the post-stroke population. However, this tool should not be used as a strong predictor of fall risk in the stroke population as the scoring descriptions indicate.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".