膝关节骨关节炎患者常用站立平衡试验的信度、效度、反应性和最小重要变化

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 REHABILITATION Physiotherapy Theory and Practice Pub Date : 2025-01-16 DOI:10.1080/09593985.2024.2445143
Neda Mostafaee, Nahid Pirayeh, Seyed Shahnam Moosavi
{"title":"膝关节骨关节炎患者常用站立平衡试验的信度、效度、反应性和最小重要变化","authors":"Neda Mostafaee, Nahid Pirayeh, Seyed Shahnam Moosavi","doi":"10.1080/09593985.2024.2445143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Standing balance is essential for physical functioning. Therefore, improving balance control is a key priority in the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA), underscoring the importance of accurately assessing standing balance.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess reliability, construct validity and responsiveness of common clinical balance tests, including Step Test, Single-Leg Stance Test, and Functional Reach Test, in patients with knee OA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In the initial session, 100 participants underwent balance tests and completed Persian-version of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Timed Up and Go Test (TUG) as comparators for evaluating the construct validity of balance tests. For test-retest reliability, a subset of 70 participants repeated balance tests 1 week after initial assessment. To examine responsiveness, a subset of 90 participants underwent tests and completed WOMAC and TUG at baseline and after completing intervention. At post-intervention assessment, participants also completed global rating of change scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three balance tests showed excellent test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient >0.75). All balance tests were considered valid and responsive because they confirmed 100% of priori hypotheses. Minimal detectable change (MDC) values were 2.71 steps for Step Test, 7.15 seconds for Single-Leg Stance Test, and 4.90 centimeters for Functional Reach Test. Minimal important change (MIC) values were 4.5 steps for Step Test, 13.10 seconds for Single-Leg Stance Test, and 5.5 centimeters for Functional Reach Test.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Three tests are reliable, valid and responsive for measuring balance in patients with knee OA. The MIC values aid clinicians and researchers in assessing the clinical relevance of changes in balance for these patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":48699,"journal":{"name":"Physiotherapy Theory and Practice","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability, validity, responsiveness and minimal important changes of common clinical standing balance tests in individuals with knee osteoarthritis.\",\"authors\":\"Neda Mostafaee, Nahid Pirayeh, Seyed Shahnam Moosavi\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09593985.2024.2445143\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Standing balance is essential for physical functioning. Therefore, improving balance control is a key priority in the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA), underscoring the importance of accurately assessing standing balance.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess reliability, construct validity and responsiveness of common clinical balance tests, including Step Test, Single-Leg Stance Test, and Functional Reach Test, in patients with knee OA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In the initial session, 100 participants underwent balance tests and completed Persian-version of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Timed Up and Go Test (TUG) as comparators for evaluating the construct validity of balance tests. For test-retest reliability, a subset of 70 participants repeated balance tests 1 week after initial assessment. To examine responsiveness, a subset of 90 participants underwent tests and completed WOMAC and TUG at baseline and after completing intervention. At post-intervention assessment, participants also completed global rating of change scale.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three balance tests showed excellent test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient >0.75). All balance tests were considered valid and responsive because they confirmed 100% of priori hypotheses. Minimal detectable change (MDC) values were 2.71 steps for Step Test, 7.15 seconds for Single-Leg Stance Test, and 4.90 centimeters for Functional Reach Test. Minimal important change (MIC) values were 4.5 steps for Step Test, 13.10 seconds for Single-Leg Stance Test, and 5.5 centimeters for Functional Reach Test.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Three tests are reliable, valid and responsive for measuring balance in patients with knee OA. The MIC values aid clinicians and researchers in assessing the clinical relevance of changes in balance for these patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48699,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Physiotherapy Theory and Practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Physiotherapy Theory and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2024.2445143\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physiotherapy Theory and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2024.2445143","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

站立平衡对身体机能是必不可少的。因此,改善平衡控制是膝关节骨关节炎(OA)治疗的关键优先事项,强调准确评估站立平衡的重要性。目的:评估膝关节OA患者常用的临床平衡测试(包括台阶测试、单腿站立测试和功能到达测试)的信度、结构效度和反应性。方法:在初始阶段,100名参与者进行了平衡测试,并完成了波斯语版的西安大略省和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数(WOMAC)和时间起身测试(TUG)作为比较,以评估平衡测试的结构效度。为了测试重测信度,70名参与者的子集在初始评估后一周重复平衡测试。为了检查反应性,90名参与者接受了测试,并在基线和完成干预后完成了WOMAC和TUG。在干预后评估中,参与者还完成了变化量表的全球评级。结果:三次平衡检验均具有良好的重测信度(类内相关系数>0.75)。所有的平衡测试都被认为是有效和有效的,因为它们100%证实了先验假设。最小可检测变化(MDC)值为:台阶测试2.71步,单腿站立测试7.15秒,功能到达测试4.90厘米。最小重要变化(MIC)值为台阶测试4.5步,单腿站立测试13.10秒,功能到达测试5.5厘米。结论:三种测试方法对测量膝关节OA患者的平衡是可靠、有效和有效的。MIC值帮助临床医生和研究人员评估这些患者平衡变化的临床相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Reliability, validity, responsiveness and minimal important changes of common clinical standing balance tests in individuals with knee osteoarthritis.

Introduction: Standing balance is essential for physical functioning. Therefore, improving balance control is a key priority in the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA), underscoring the importance of accurately assessing standing balance.

Purpose: To assess reliability, construct validity and responsiveness of common clinical balance tests, including Step Test, Single-Leg Stance Test, and Functional Reach Test, in patients with knee OA.

Methods: In the initial session, 100 participants underwent balance tests and completed Persian-version of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Timed Up and Go Test (TUG) as comparators for evaluating the construct validity of balance tests. For test-retest reliability, a subset of 70 participants repeated balance tests 1 week after initial assessment. To examine responsiveness, a subset of 90 participants underwent tests and completed WOMAC and TUG at baseline and after completing intervention. At post-intervention assessment, participants also completed global rating of change scale.

Results: Three balance tests showed excellent test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficient >0.75). All balance tests were considered valid and responsive because they confirmed 100% of priori hypotheses. Minimal detectable change (MDC) values were 2.71 steps for Step Test, 7.15 seconds for Single-Leg Stance Test, and 4.90 centimeters for Functional Reach Test. Minimal important change (MIC) values were 4.5 steps for Step Test, 13.10 seconds for Single-Leg Stance Test, and 5.5 centimeters for Functional Reach Test.

Conclusion: Three tests are reliable, valid and responsive for measuring balance in patients with knee OA. The MIC values aid clinicians and researchers in assessing the clinical relevance of changes in balance for these patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
10.00%
发文量
300
期刊介绍: The aim of Physiotherapy Theory and Practice is to provide an international, peer-reviewed forum for the publication, dissemination, and discussion of recent developments and current research in physiotherapy/physical therapy. The journal accepts original quantitative and qualitative research reports, theoretical papers, systematic literature reviews, clinical case reports, and technical clinical notes. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice; promotes post-basic education through reports, reviews, and updates on all aspects of physiotherapy and specialties relating to clinical physiotherapy.
期刊最新文献
Psychometric properties of 3-meter backward walk test (3MBWT) in people with Parkinson disease. Feasibility study of a home-based graded motor imagery intervention (GraMI protocol) for amputees with phantom limb pain. Can physiotherapy in an interdisciplinary pain rehabilitation setting improve physical function? A long-term mixed methods follow-up study. "Exploring job demands and resources influencing mental health and work engagement among physical therapists: a cross-sectional survey of Norwegian physical therapists." Reliability and validity of the 6-minute pegboard and ring test for functional exercise capacity in patients with breast cancer.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1