Objective: To improve, with the aid of psychometric analysis, the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (B...

Background: Recently, a new tool for assessing dynamic balance impairments has been presented: the 14-item Mini-BESTest. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the psychometric performance of the Mini-BESTest and the Berg Balance Scale (BBS). Design: A prospective, single-group, observational design was used in the study. Methods: Ninety-three participants (mean age=66.2 years, SD=13.2; 53 women, 40 men) with balance deficits were recruited. Interrater (3 raters) and test-retest (1–3 days) reliability were calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Responsiveness and minimal important change were assessed (after 10 sessions of physical therapy) using both distribution-based and anchor-based methods (external criterion: the 15-point Global Rating of Change [GRC] scale). Results: At baseline, neither floor effects nor ceiling effects were found in either the Mini-BESTest or the BBS. After treatment, the maximum score was found in 12 participants (12.9%) with BBS and in 2 participants (2.1%) with Mini-BESTest. Test-retest reliability for total scores was significantly higher for the Mini-BESTest (ICC=.96) than for the BBS (ICC=.92), whereas interrater reliability was similar (ICC=.98 versus .97, respectively). The standard error of measurement (SEM) was 1.26 and the minimum detectable change at the 95% confidence level (MDC95) was 3.5 points for Mini-BESTest, whereas the SEM was 2.18 and the MDC95 was 6.2 points for the BBS. In receiver operating characteristic curves, the area under the curve was 0.92 for the Mini-BESTest and 0.91 for the BBS. The best minimal important change (MIC) was 4 points for the Mini-BESTest and 7 points for the BBS. After treatment, 38 participants evaluated with the Mini-BESTest and only 23 participants evaluated with the BBS (out of the 40 participants who had a GRC score of ≥3.5) showed a score change equal to or greater than the MIC values. Limitations: The consecutive sampling method drawn from a single rehabilitation facility and the intrinsic weakness of the GRC for calculating MIC values were limitations of the study. Conclusions: The 2 scales behave similarly, but the Mini-BESTest appears to have a lower ceiling effect, slightly higher reliability levels, and greater accuracy in classifying individual patients who show significant improvement in balance function.

People with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (PwALS) show progressive loss of voluntary muscle strength. In advanced disease, motor and phonatory impairments seriously hinder the patient's interpersonal communication. High-tech devices such as eye tracking communication devices (ETCDs) are used to aid communication in the later stages of ALS. We sought to evaluate the effect of ETCDs on patient disability, quality of life (QoL), and user satisfaction, in a group of 35 regular ETCD users in late-stage ALS with tetraplegia and anarthria. The following scales were administered: 1) the Individually Prioritized Problem Assessment (IPPA) scale, in three conditions: without device, with ETCD and, when applicable, with an Eye Transfer (ETRAN) board; 2) the Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale (PIADS); and 3) the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology (QUEST 2.0). With ETRAN, IPPA showed an increase in communicative abilities with respect to the condition without device, but ETCD produced a further significant increase. PIADS evidenced a large increase of QoL, and QUEST 2.0 showed high user satisfaction with ETCD use. In conclusion, ETCDs should be considered in late-stage ALS with tetraplegia and anarthria, since in these patients they can reduce communication disability and improve QoL.

We hypothesised that rehabilitation specifically addressing balance in Parkinson’s disease patients might improve not only balance but locomotion as well. Two balance-training protocols (standing on a moving platform and traditional balance exercises) were assessed by assigning patients to two groups (Platform,n=15, and Exercises,n=17). The platform moved periodically in the anteroposterior, laterolateral, and oblique direction, with and without vision in different trials. Balance exercises were based on the Otago Exercise Program. Both platform and exercise sessions were administered from easy to difficult. Outcome measures were (a) balancing behaviour, assessed by both Index of Stability (IS) on platform and Mini-BESTest, and (b) gait, assessed by both baropodometry and Timed Up and Go (TUG) test. Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I) and Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-8) were administered. Both groups exhibited better balance control, as assessed both by IS and by Mini-BESTest. Gait speed at baropodometry also improved in both groups, while TUG was less sensitive to improvement. Scores of FES-I and PDQ-8 showed a marginal improvement. A four-week treatment featuring no gait training but focused on challenging balance tasks produces considerable gait enhancement in mildly to moderately affected patients. Walking problems in PD depend on postural instability and are successfully relieved by appropriate balance rehabilitation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.govNCT03314597.