ABSTRACT
Background Many objective measures of balance control, including force plate measures of standing balance, lack sufficient validation for use in the stroke population.
Research questions Do force plate measures of quiet standing balance during the sub-acute stage of stroke recovery have concurrent validity (i.e., correlate with functional balance measures) and discriminative ability (i.e., differentiate fallers from non-fallers and/or those with low-moderate versus high risk of falling)?
Methods Participants completed one trial of quiet standing with eyes open, lasting for 30 seconds. Mean speeds of centre of pressure along the anterior-posterior and medial-lateral axes, weight-bearing asymmetry, and symmetry index were calculated. Concurrent validity of these measures were established against the Berg Balance Scale; their abilities in differentiating fallers from non-fallers, and individuals with low-moderate versus high risk of falling were evaluated using the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC).
Results Among the measures studied, mean speed of centre of pressure along the anterior-posterior axis demonstrated the strongest correlation with the Berg Balance Scale (ρ=-0.430, p-value=0.01). Weight-bearing asymmetry showed the highest ability in differentiating fallers from non-fallers (AUC= 0.69), as well as individuals with low-moderate versus high risk of falling (AUC= 0.66).
Significance Our findings suggest that speed of centre of pressure along the anterior-posterior axis, and weight-bearing asymmetry are valid for use in the sub-acute stage of stroke recovery. These validated measures can better inform rehabilitation practice about the ability of upright standing balance following a stroke.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This project has been generously funded by a grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, administered and supported by the Ontario Stroke Network (OSN1101-000117). Equipment and space were funded with grants from the Canada Foundation for Innovation, Ontario Innovation Trust, and the Ministry of Research and Innovation. AM was supported by a New Investigator Award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MSH-141983). RA was supported by the Peterborough K.M. Hunter Charitable Foundation Graduate Award, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute Student Scholarship, QEII/Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario Graduate Scholarship in Science and Technology, Unilever/Lipton Graduate Fellowships in Neurosciences, and Rehabilitation Sciences Institute-University of Toronto Doctoral Completion Award. The authors confirm that the funders had no influence over the study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of data, writing of the report, and the decision to submit the article for publication.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Research Ethics Board of the University Health Network gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The participants of this study did not consent for their data to be shared publicly; therefore, supporting/raw data is not available.
