3.8 Review

Reliable and valid measures for the clinical assessment of balance and gait in older adults with dementia: a systematic review

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHYSIOTHERAPY
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 85-96

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/21679169.2020.1788638

关键词

Dementia; postural balance; gait; reproducibility of results; systematic review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article systematically reviewed the literature on clinical balance or gait tests for older adults with dementia, and summarized the reliable tests for community-dwelling and institutional-dwelling individuals.
Purpose:To systematically review the literature and determine clinical balance or gait tests appropriate for use in older adults with dementia. Materials and Methods:Databases PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched (inception-April 2020). Inclusion criteria: participants were diagnosed with dementia and reliability or validity was evaluated for clinical balance or gait tests. Exclusion criteria: not published in English or unable to extract data. Results:Twenty-two studies evaluating 35 clinical balance or gait tests were included. For community-dwelling individuals, the Modified Clinical Test of Sensory Interaction in Balance, gait velocity, Step Test and the Timed Up and Go had good relative and absolute reliability. For institutional-dwelling individuals the Berg Balance Scale, the Groningen Meander Walk Test, and 6-Meter Walk Test had excellent relative and absolute reliability. The Groningen Meander Walk Test was the only recommended test that has been validated. Conclusions:Reliable clinical tests of balance and gait for use in people with dementia exist, yet few have been validated. Additionally, to comprehensively assess balance, clinicians must utilise multiple tests. Future research should evaluate the psychometric properties of clinical balance and gait tests so as to identify those appropriate for use in people with dementia across setting, severity and dementia type.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据