MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401290347 · doi:10.1002/pmrj.13235

Balance Error Scoring System in the assessment of chronic ankle stability: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2024· review· en· W4401290347 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shanshan Zheng, Xiao’ao Xue, Le Yu, Weichu Tao, Ru Wang, Yang Sun, Yinghui Hua

Bibliographic record

VenuePM&R · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China - State Grid Corporation Joint Fund for Smart GridNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNatural Science Foundation of Shanghai
KeywordsMedicineCochrane LibraryConfidence intervalBalance (ability)Meta-analysisPhysical therapyStrictly standardized mean differenceCINAHLPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicinePsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 I2 value of 3.5%. Significant differences between groups were noted in the single foam (SMD = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.33–1.45; I2 = 78.3%) and single firm (SMD = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.14–1.10; I2 = 72.1%) performances, although both demonstrated high heterogeneity. Conversely, the tandem foam (SMD = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.51–1.02; I2 = 0.0%) and tandem firm (SMD = 0.38; 95% CI: 0.11–0.68; I2 = 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.034
Bibliometrics0.0110.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.273 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePM&RSame topicFoot and Ankle SurgeryFrench-language works237,207