» Articles » PMID: 27893564

Instrumented Test of Sensory Integration for Balance: A Validation Study

Overview
Date 2016 Nov 29
PMID 27893564
Citations 29
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background And Purpose: Abnormal postural sway is associated with an increase in risk of falls but is difficult for clinicians to accurately quantify without access to laboratory equipment. Instrumenting clinical outcome measures using body-worn movement monitors is a low-cost alternative. This is the first study to compare the modified Clinical Test of Sensory Integration for Balance (i-mCTSIB) to the laboratory test of the Sensory Organization Test (SOT) with dynamic posturography in a group of participants with Parkinson's disease (PD) and subtle balance limitations. The purpose of this study was to (1) determine the concurrent validity of the i-mCTSIB with the SOT (6 and 4 conditions) and (2) compare the i-mCTSIB and the SOT to differentiate between individuals with and without recent falls within the previous 6 months.

Methods: This cross-sectional study examined 26 participants with idiopathic PD who had a Motor Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale score of 32.7 (13.5) out of 108.

Results: The composite and conditions 1 and 4 of the i-mCTSIB and SOT scores were significantly correlated: composite scores r = -0.64 (P ≤ .001), C1 r = -0.43 (P = .03), C3 r = -0.60 (P ≤ .01), and C4 r = -0.54 (P ≤ .001). A significant difference was observed in mean i-mCTSIB composite scores between fallers and nonfallers (P = .04). In contrast, the SOT composite was not significantly different between fallers and nonfallers (P = 0.31).

Discussion: The results suggest that the i-mCTSIB may be a valid and clinically meaningful measure of sensory organization in persons with PD, even those with mild postural instability as measured by the median Hoehn and Yahr score (2.0). Future research should evaluate predictive validity of the i-mCTSIB for prospective falls.

Conclusion: The instrumented mCTSIB with portable, body-worn movement allows clinicians to quantify abnormal postural sway without the ceiling effects of clinical balance testing or the expense and importability of force plate technology in the SOT. Instrumenting mCTSIB may also distinguish between fallers and nonfallers.

Citing Articles

Reliability of the Instrumented Modified Clinical Test of Sensory Interaction on Balance Using a Virtual Balance Device.

Young S, Norris E, Shifflett T, Nisbet D, Saunders B, Driver C Int J Exerc Sci. 2024; 17(1):1183-1192.

PMID: 39257646 PMC: 11385286. DOI: 10.70252/AMXQ4966.


Peripheral neuropathy, an independent risk factor for falls in the elderly, impairs stepping as a postural control mechanism: A case-cohort study.

Kohle F, Stark C, Klunter H, Wernicke D, Wunderlich G, Fink G J Peripher Nerv Syst. 2024; 29(4):453-463.

PMID: 39219364 PMC: 11625983. DOI: 10.1111/jns.12656.


Trunk Instability in the Pitch, Yaw, and Roll Planes during Clinical Balance Tests: Axis Differences and Correlations to vHIT Asymmetries Following Acute Unilateral Vestibular Loss.

Allum J, Candreia C, Honegger F Brain Sci. 2024; 14(7).

PMID: 39061407 PMC: 11274631. DOI: 10.3390/brainsci14070664.


The psychometric properties of the modified fear of falling avoidance behavior questionnaire in Parkinson's disease and older adults.

Landers M, Haller A, Aldaco A, La B, Babarinde A, Rider J Arch Physiother. 2024; 14:11-19.

PMID: 38707914 PMC: 11067869. DOI: 10.33393/aop.2024.2702.


Objective estimation of m-CTSIB balance test scores using wearable sensors and machine learning.

Nassajpour M, Shuqair M, Rosenfeld A, Tolea M, Galvin J, Ghoraani B Front Digit Health. 2024; 6:1366176.

PMID: 38707195 PMC: 11066210. DOI: 10.3389/fdgth.2024.1366176.


References
1.
Cohen H, Blatchly C, Gombash L . A study of the clinical test of sensory interaction and balance. Phys Ther. 1993; 73(6):346-51; discussion 351-4. DOI: 10.1093/ptj/73.6.346. View

2.
Khallaf M, Fayed E . Early postural changes in individuals with idiopathic Parkinson's disease. Parkinsons Dis. 2015; 2015:369454. PMC: 4397425. DOI: 10.1155/2015/369454. View

3.
Panzer V, Wakefield D, Hall C, Wolfson L . Mobility assessment: sensitivity and specificity of measurement sets in older adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011; 92(6):905-12. PMC: 3146767. DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.01.004. View

4.
Shumway-Cook A, Horak F . Assessing the influence of sensory interaction of balance. Suggestion from the field. Phys Ther. 1986; 66(10):1548-50. DOI: 10.1093/ptj/66.10.1548. View

5.
Whitney S, Roche J, Marchetti G, Lin C, Steed D, Furman G . A comparison of accelerometry and center of pressure measures during computerized dynamic posturography: a measure of balance. Gait Posture. 2011; 33(4):594-9. PMC: 4887856. DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2011.01.015. View