Reliable and valid measures for the clinical assessment of balance and gait in older adults with dementia: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To systematically review the literature and determine clinical balance or gait tests appropriate for use in older adults with dementia.Materials and Methods: Databases PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched (inception-April 2020). Inclusion criteria: participants were diagnosed with dementia and reliability or validity was evaluated for clinical balance or gait tests. Exclusion criteria: not published in English or unable to extract data.Results: Twenty-two studies evaluating 35 clinical balance or gait tests were included. For community-dwelling individuals, the Modified Clinical Test of Sensory Interaction in Balance, gait velocity, Step Test and the Timed Up and Go had good relative and absolute reliability. For institutional-dwelling individuals the Berg Balance Scale, the Groningen Meander Walk Test, and 6-Meter Walk Test had excellent relative and absolute reliability. The Groningen Meander Walk Test was the only recommended test that has been validated.Conclusions: Reliable clinical tests of balance and gait for use in people with dementia exist, yet few have been validated. Additionally, to comprehensively assess balance, clinicians must utilise multiple tests. Future research should evaluate the psychometric properties of clinical balance and gait tests so as to identify those appropriate for use in people with dementia across setting, severity and dementia type.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".