University of Limerick Institutional Repository

The ability of clinical balance measures to identify falls risk in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

DSpace Repository

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Quinn, Gillian
dc.contributor.author Comber, Laura
dc.contributor.author Galvin, Rose
dc.contributor.author Coote, Susan
dc.date.accessioned 2018-07-17T08:41:54Z
dc.date.available 2018-07-17T08:41:54Z
dc.date.issued 2018
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10344/6967
dc.description peer-reviewed en_US
dc.description.abstract Objective: To determine the ability of clinical measures of balance to distinguish fallers from non-fallers and to determine their predictive validity in identifying those at risk of falls. Data sources: AMED, CINAHL, Medline, Scopus, PubMed Central and Google Scholar. First search: July 2015. Final search: October 2017. Review methods: Inclusion criteria were studies of adults with a definite multiple sclerosis diagnosis, a clinical balance assessment and method of falls recording. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 scale and the modified Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Statistical analysis was conducted for the cross-sectional studies using Review Manager 5. The mean difference with 95% confidence interval in balance outcomes between fallers and non-fallers was used as the mode of analysis. Results: We included 33 studies (19 cross-sectional, 5 randomised controlled trials, 9 prospective) with a total of 3901 participants, of which 1917 (49%) were classified as fallers. The balance measures most commonly reported were the Berg Balance Scale, Timed Up and Go and Falls Efficacy Scale International. Meta-analysis demonstrated fallers perform significantly worse than non-fallers on all measures analysed except the Timed Up and Go Cognitive (p < 0.05), but discriminative ability of the measures is commonly not reported. Of those reported, the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve value (0.92), but without reporting corresponding measures of clinical utility. Conclusion: Clinical measures of balance differ significantly between fallers and non-fallers but have poor predictive ability for falls risk in people with multiple sclerosis. en_US
dc.language.iso eng en_US
dc.publisher SAGE Publications en_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries Clincial Rehabilitation;32 (5), pp. 571-582
dc.relation.uri http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026921551774871
dc.subject multiple sclerosis en_US
dc.subject assessment en_US
dc.subject falls en_US
dc.subject balance en_US
dc.subject risk en_US
dc.title The ability of clinical balance measures to identify falls risk in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis en_US
dc.type info:eu-repo/semantics/article en_US
dc.type.supercollection all_ul_research en_US
dc.type.supercollection ul_published_reviewed en_US
dc.identifier.doi 10.1177/026921551774871
dc.rights.accessrights info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess en_US


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ULIR


Browse

My Account

Statistics