218
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

The minimal clinically important difference of the mini-balance evaluation systems test in patients with early subacute stroke

, &
Pages 672-680 | Received 12 May 2022, Accepted 05 Nov 2022, Published online: 17 Nov 2022
 

ABSTRACT

Background:

There is insufficient evidence regarding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest).

Objective:

To determine the MCID of the Mini-BESTest in patients with early subacute stroke.

Patients and Methods:

In this prospective cohort study, the Mini-BESTest score of 50 patients with stroke was obtained within 1 week of their admission, their Mini-BESTest and Global Rating of Change Scale (GRCS) scores were obtained at discharge. The GRCS scores were reported by both the patients and their physical therapists. We evaluated the correlation between the Mini-BESTest change scores and the GRCS by determining Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. The MCID was calculated using 0.5× standard deviation (SD) for the distribution method and the change difference and receiver operating curve (ROC) for the anchor method.

Results:

The mean (SD) number of days between evaluations was 15.4 (4.8), and the Mini-BESTest score at admission was 17.7 (5.2) and 23.1 (3.5) at discharge. The correlation between the GRCS and the change in the Mini-BESTest score was 0.28 (p = .04) for the patients and 0.54 (p < .001) for the therapists. The MCID based on the distribution method was 3 points for 0.5× SD. The MCID values based on the anchor method were 2.3 for the change difference and 0.5 for the ROC in the patient-rated GRCS, and 4.2 for the change difference and 4.5 for the ROC in the physical therapist-rated GRCS.

Conclusions:

The MCID based on the anchor method was 4.2–4.5 points, and the MCID based on the distribution method was 2.3 points.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Ethics approval

This study was approved by the Ethics Review Committee of Numata Neurosurgery & Heart Disease Hospital (approval #00039) and conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/10749357.2022.2145759

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.