Responsiveness and Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the Brief-BESTest in People With COPD After Pulmonary Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: he Brief-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Brief-BESTest) is a comprehensive, reliable, and valid balance test that provides valuable information to guide balance training in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Its clinical interpretability is, however, currently limited, because cutoff points to identify clinically relevant changes in people with COPD after pulmonary rehabilitation are still lacking. This study aimed to establish the responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the Brief-BESTest in people with COPD after pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). METHODS: A secondary analysis of data from 2 previous studies was conducted. The modified British Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scale, the 6-Minute Walk Test (6-MWT), and the Brief-BESTest (0-24 points) were collected in people with COPD pre/post a 12-week PR program including balance training. The MCID was computed using anchor- and distribution-based methods. Changes in the 6-MWT and the mMRC were assessed and used as anchors. The pooled MCID was computed using the arithmetic weighted mean (2/3 anchor- and 1/3 distribution-based methods). RESULTS: Seventy-one people with COPD (69 years [SD = 8]; 76% male; FEV1 = 49.8%predicted [SD = 18%]) were included. There was a significant improvement in the Brief-BESTest after PR (mean difference = 3 points [SD = 3]). Significant correlations were found between the Brief-BESTest and the mMRC (r = -.31) and the 6-MWT (r = .37). The pooled MCID was 3.3 points. CONCLUSION: An improvement of at least 3 points in the Brief-BESTest in people with COPD will enhance the interpretability of PR effects on balance performance of this population and guide tailored interventions. IMPACT: The Brief-BESTest outcome measure is comprehensive, easily administered, and simple to interpret in clinical practice. This study represents a significant contribution toward the clinical interpretation of changes in balance in people with COPD following PR.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".