Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 2, 2025
Quantitative Static and Dynamic Assessment of Balance Control in Stroke Patients
Published on: May 17, 2020
Pooled Minimal Clinically Important Differences of the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test in Patients With Early
Shuntaro Tamura1, Kazuhiro Miyata2, Satoshi Hasegawa3
1Department of Rehabilitation, Fujioka General Hospital, Fujioka, Gunma, Japan.
Objective:
Balance problems are common in patients with stroke, and the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest) is a reliable and valid assessment tool for measuring balance function. Determining the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is crucial for assessing treatment effectiveness. This study aimed to determine the MCID of the Mini-BESTest in patients with early subacute stroke.
Methods:
In this prospective multicenter study, 53 patients with early subacute stroke undergoing rehabilitation in inpatient units were included. The mean age of the patients was 72.6 (SD = 12.2) years. The Mini-BESTest, which consists of 14 items assessing various aspects of balance function, including anticipatory postural adjustments, postural responses, sensory orientation, and dynamic gait, was used as the assessment tool. The global rating of change (GRC) scales completed by the participants and physical therapists were used as external anchors to calculate the MCID. The GRC scale measured subjective improvement in balance function, ranging from -3 (very significantly worse) to +3 (very significantly better), with a GRC score of ≥+2 considered as meaningful improvement. Four methods were used to calculate the MCID: mean of participants with GRC of 2, receiver operating characteristic-based method, predictive modeling method, and adjustment of the predictive modeling method based on the rate of improvement. From the MCID values obtained using these methods, a single pooled MCID value was calculated.
Results:
The MCID values for the Mini-BESTest obtained through the 4 methods ranged from 3.2 to 4.5 points when using the physical therapist's GRC score as the anchor but could not be calculated using the participant's GRC score. The pooled MCID value for the Mini-BESTest was 3.8 (95% CI = 2.9-5.0).
Conclusions:
The Mini-BESTest MCID obtained in this study is valuable for identifying improvements in balance function among patients with early subacute stroke.
Impact:
Determination of the MCID is valuable for evaluating treatment effectiveness. The study findings provide clinicians with practical values that can assist in interpreting Mini-BESTest results and assessing treatment effectiveness.
