Balance Error Scoring System in the assessment of chronic ankle stability: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Chronic ankle instability (CAI) is a common musculoskeletal injury associated with static balance deficits. The Balance Error Scoring System (BESS) is commonly used to assess static balance in individuals with CAI. However, the sensitivity of BESS in detecting balance deficits in CAI is unknown. This study compared BESS performance between people with CAI and controls and investigated which stances most effectively identified balance deficits in individuals with CAI. Literature Survey Seven electronic databases (Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Cochrane Library) were searched from July 13, 2023, to September 10, 2023, using the ankle instability and balance related terms as keywords to search original studies and perform a systematic review. Methods Studies that compared BESS scores between individuals with CAI and healthy controls were systematically identified. Extracted data included study characteristics, participant demographics, and assessment details. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. The standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used as effect sizes to compare groups for the BESS components used to assess CAI. Results Six studies met the eligibility criteria. The double‐leg foam stance yielded an SMD of −0.02 (95% CI: −0.32 to 0.29), with an I 2 value of 3.5%. Significant differences between groups were noted in the single foam (SMD = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.33–1.45; I 2 = 78.3%) and single firm (SMD = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.14–1.10; I 2 = 72.1%) performances, although both demonstrated high heterogeneity. Conversely, the tandem foam (SMD = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.51–1.02; I 2 = 0.0%) and tandem firm (SMD = 0.38; 95% CI: 0.11–0.68; I 2 = 23.8%) performances showed small to moderate between‐group differences with considerably lower heterogeneity. Conclusion This review indicates that tandem stances on foam and firm surfaces in the BESS are reliable indicators of static balance deficits in individuals with CAI.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".