A study to assess whether fixed-width beam walking provides sufficient challenge to assess balance ability across lower limb prosthesis users.
Andrew Sawers, Brian J Hafner
PMID 28948848WHAT IT FOUND
No single beam width challenged all 30 lower limb prosthesis users.
Each person had at least one appropriate beam. Performance stabilized by trials 9 to 10 for all and by trials 7 to 10 for more than 90%.
Key findings
01No single fixed-width beam appropriately challenged all participants, and at least one-third found each beam too easy or too hard.
02Each participant had at least one appropriately challenging beam, and on those beams more than 90% of trials had normalized distance greater than 0.0 but less than 1.0.
03Beam-walking performance stabilized for all participants during trials 9 to 10 on appropriately challenging beams, and for more than 90% during trials 7 to 10.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study included only 30 lower limb prosthesis users, so the beam widths and number of trials may not apply to other patients. The rules for calling a beam too easy, too hard, or appropriate were created by the researchers using a three-trial cutoff chosen from visual inspection, not by an established standard. The beams were made from typical construction materials, and other widths could change the results. The study was cross-sectional and looked only at short-term trial-to-trial performance, not performance across days. The study assessed feasibility only and did not test validity or reliability for clinical use.
Declared interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that beam walking is ready to use as a clinical balance test. The study only assessed feasibility in 30 prosthesis users, did not test validity or reliability, and found that a single beam width was not appropriate for everyone.