Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1
flow diagram of the process of choosing studies.
Tables
PICO table Population Adult with neurological impairment (stroke, TBI, SCI, MS, ALS, CP and N-TBI). Intervention Assessment of sitting balance (objective and subjective) Comparison N/A Outcome Psychometrics properties Condition, number of studies Study citation Spinal cord injury, 6 studies [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] and [10] Stroke, three studies [11], [12] and [13] Multiple sclerosis, one study [14] - Table 3
Studies characteristics (neurological condition, citation, measured aspects, participants, reliability elements and study quality percentage).
Citations Instrument name Participant number ResultReliability elements Study quality(average QATSDD percentage) Spinal cord injury [5] Motor Assessment Scale (MAS) item 3 ‘balanced sitting’ N=50 Inter-rater reliability for MAS (kw¼0.83–0.91) 85.74% Sitting balance score SBS Inter-rater reliability for SBS (kw¼0.69–0.96) [6] Brazilian version in Portuguese of the Thoracic-Lumbar Control Scale N=22 - Intra-examiner reliability 0.96 88.09% - Inter-examiner reliability (0.961 and 0.986) - High value of internal consistency (0.934) [7] clinical trunk control test N=177 - Inter-observer reliability a pondered Kappa of 0.987 89.58% - Alpha coefficient had a value of 0.979. [8] Hand-Held Dynamometry in Individuals with Spinal Cord Injury N=29 - Intrarater reliability was good to excellent (intraclass correlation coefficients, 0.80–0.98 [unsupported]; 0.79–0.99 [supported]) for all raters in the four directions of force application. 83.33% - Interrater reliability was excellent (intraclass correlation coefficients, 0.97–0.99 [unsupported]; 0.96–0.98 [supported]) for all directions [9] Dynamic sitting balance tests: Limits of stability N=9 - Moderate to excellent test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.673 to 0.990) 71.42% Dynamic sitting balance tests: sequential weight shifting - Moderate to excellent reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from0.688 to 0.952) 79.19% [10] Sitting balance measure N=30 - Cronbach’s α = 0.96 79.19% Stroke [11] The Italian version of the Trunk Impairment Scale N=41 - Cronbach’s α = 0.88 59.52% - Internal consistency ranged from 0.79 to 0.88. ICC values ranged from 0.725 to 0.933 for inter-rater reliability, with the SEM ranging from 0.52 to 1.11, and from 0.770 to 0.911 for intra-rater reliability - Kappa values ranged from moderate to almost perfect [12] Trunk Impairment Scale Norwegian version modified TIS-NV N=50 Cronbach’s α = 0.85 88.09% [13] Function In SittingTest N=31 - The person separation index was 0.978 83.33% - Coefficient alpha was 0.98, indicating high internal consistency Multiple sclerosis [14] Function in sitting test N=20 Cronbach’s α = 0.91 80.95% - Table 4
Average percentage given by both reviewers WA and HA using The Quality Assessment Tool for Reviewing Studies with Diverse Designs approach.
Study reference QATSDD percentage [5] 85.74% [6] 88.09% [7] 89.58% [8] 83.33% [9] 71.42% [10] 79.19% [11] 59.52% [12] 88.09% [13] 83.33% [14] 80.95%
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.