MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321458821 · doi:10.3389/fresc.2023.1084085

Standardized tools for assessing balance and mobility in stroke clinical practice guidelines worldwide: A scoping review

2023· review· en· W4321458821 on OpenAlexafffund
Renato Barbosa dos Santos, Annabelle Fiedler, Anchal Badwal, Jean Michelle Legasto-Mulvale, Kathryn M. Sibley, Olubukola A. Olaleye, Gudrun Diermayr, Nancy M. Salbach

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity Health NetworkGeorge & Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare InnovationToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation Institute
KeywordsBerg Balance ScaleRehabilitationBalance (ability)Physical medicine and rehabilitationTimed Up and Go testTest (biology)MedicineClinical PracticeStroke (engine)Physical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Use of standardized tools to assess balance and mobility limitations is a recommended practice in stroke rehabilitation. The extent to which clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for stroke rehabilitation recommend specific tools and provide resources to support their implementation is unknown. Purpose: To identify and describe standardized, performance-based tools for assessing balance and/or mobility and describe postural control components challenged, the approach used to select tools, and resources provided for clinical implementation, in CPGs for stroke. Methods: A scoping review was conducted. We included CPGs with recommendations on the delivery of stroke rehabilitation to address balance and mobility limitations. We searched seven electronic databases and grey literature. Pairs of reviewers reviewed abstracts and full texts in duplicate. We abstracted data about CPGs, standardized assessment tools, the approach for tool selection, and resources. Experts identified postural control components challenged by each tool. Results: Of the 19 CPGs included in the review, 7 (37%) and 12 (63%) were from middle- and high-income countries, respectively. Ten CPGs (53%) recommended or suggested 27 unique tools. Across 10 CPGs, the most commonly cited tools were the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) (90%), 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) (80%), Timed Up and Go Test (80%) and 10-Meter Walk Test (70%). The tool most frequently cited in middle- and high-income countries was the BBS (3/3 CPGs), and 6MWT (7/7 CPGs), respectively. Across 27 tools, the three components of postural control most frequently challenged were underlying motor systems (100%), anticipatory postural control (96%), and dynamic stability (85%). Five CPGs provided information in varying detail on how tools were selected; only 1 CPG provided a level of recommendation. Seven CPGs provided resources to support clinical implementation; one CPG from a middle-income country included a resource available in a CPG from a high-income country. Conclusion: CPGs for stroke rehabilitation do not consistently provide recommendations for standardized tools to assess balance and mobility or resources to facilitate clinical application. Reporting of processes for tool selection and recommendation is inadequate. Review findings can be used to inform global efforts to develop and translate recommendations and resources for using standardized tools to assess balance and mobility post-stroke. Systematic Review Registration: https://osf.io/, identifier: 10.17605/OSF.IO/6RBDV.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.142
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.796
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.142
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.291
GPT teacher head0.607
Teacher spread0.315 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations31
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Rehabilitation SciencesSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207