Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Feb 21:4:1084085.
doi: 10.3389/fresc.2023.1084085. eCollection 2023.

Standardized tools for assessing balance and mobility in stroke clinical practice guidelines worldwide: A scoping review

Renato B Dos Santos  1   2 , Annabelle Fiedler  3 , Anchal Badwal  4 , Jean Michelle Legasto-Mulvale  2   4 , Kathryn M Sibley  5   6 , Olubukola A Olaleye  7 , Gudrun Diermayr  3 , Nancy M Salbach  2   4   8
Affiliations

Standardized tools for assessing balance and mobility in stroke clinical practice guidelines worldwide: A scoping review

Renato B Dos Santos et al. Front Rehabil Sci. .

Abstract

Background: Use of standardized tools to assess balance and mobility limitations is a recommended practice in stroke rehabilitation. The extent to which clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for stroke rehabilitation recommend specific tools and provide resources to support their implementation is unknown.

Purpose: To identify and describe standardized, performance-based tools for assessing balance and/or mobility and describe postural control components challenged, the approach used to select tools, and resources provided for clinical implementation, in CPGs for stroke.

Methods: A scoping review was conducted. We included CPGs with recommendations on the delivery of stroke rehabilitation to address balance and mobility limitations. We searched seven electronic databases and grey literature. Pairs of reviewers reviewed abstracts and full texts in duplicate. We abstracted data about CPGs, standardized assessment tools, the approach for tool selection, and resources. Experts identified postural control components challenged by each tool.

Results: Of the 19 CPGs included in the review, 7 (37%) and 12 (63%) were from middle- and high-income countries, respectively. Ten CPGs (53%) recommended or suggested 27 unique tools. Across 10 CPGs, the most commonly cited tools were the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) (90%), 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) (80%), Timed Up and Go Test (80%) and 10-Meter Walk Test (70%). The tool most frequently cited in middle- and high-income countries was the BBS (3/3 CPGs), and 6MWT (7/7 CPGs), respectively. Across 27 tools, the three components of postural control most frequently challenged were underlying motor systems (100%), anticipatory postural control (96%), and dynamic stability (85%). Five CPGs provided information in varying detail on how tools were selected; only 1 CPG provided a level of recommendation. Seven CPGs provided resources to support clinical implementation; one CPG from a middle-income country included a resource available in a CPG from a high-income country.

Conclusion: CPGs for stroke rehabilitation do not consistently provide recommendations for standardized tools to assess balance and mobility or resources to facilitate clinical application. Reporting of processes for tool selection and recommendation is inadequate. Review findings can be used to inform global efforts to develop and translate recommendations and resources for using standardized tools to assess balance and mobility post-stroke.

Systematic review registration: https://osf.io/, identifier: 10.17605/OSF.IO/6RBDV.

Keywords: balance; clinical practice guideline; country income; implementation resources; mobility; standardized assessment tools; stroke rehabilitation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. NMS is an author of one of the guidelines included in this review.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Results of guideline searching and selection.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Abbafati C, Machado DB, Cislaghi B, Salman OM, Karanikolos M, McKee M, et al. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2019. Lancet. (2020) 396(10258):1204–22. 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30925-9 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Langhorne P, O’Donnell MJ, Chin SL, Zhang H, Xavier D, Avezum A, et al. Practice patterns and outcomes after stroke across countries at different economic levels (INTERSTROKE): an international observational study. Lancet. (2018) 391(10134):2019–27. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30802-X - DOI - PubMed
    1. Field MJ, Gebruers N, Shanmuga Sundaram T, Nicholson S, Mead G. Physical activity after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. ISRN Stroke. (2013) 2013:1–13. 10.1155/2013/464176 - DOI
    1. Mayo NE, Wood-Dauphinee S, Côté R, Durcan L, Carlton J. Activity, participation, and quality of life 6 months poststroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. (2002) 83(8):P1035-42. 10.1053/apmr.2002.33984 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schmid AA, Van Puymbroeck M, Altenburger PA, Dierks TA, Miller KK, Damush TM, et al. Balance and balance self-efficacy are associated with activity and participation after stroke: a cross-sectional study in people with chronic stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. (2012) 93(6):1101–7. 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.01.020 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources