Correlation between community balance and mobility scale (CB&M) with a battery of outcome measures to assess balance in Parkinson's disease - a cross-sectional study.
Ziona Lionel Dsouza, Sydney Roshan Rebello, Cherishma Dsilva
PMID 34749815WHAT IT FOUND
In Parkinson's, the CB&M correlated strongly with standard balance tests but exposed deficits they missed.
The Berg Scale hit a ceiling, masking risk in early stages. Use CB&M to catch subtle, community-level balance problems before falls occur.
Key findings
01The Community Balance and Mobility scale showed strong correlations with the Berg Balance Scale, Timed Up and Go, and Functional Reach Test in people with Parkinson's disease.
02The Berg Balance Scale exhibited a ceiling effect in this population, whereas the Community Balance and Mobility scale did not, allowing the latter to detect deficits in patients who scored normally on other tests.
03Patients in Hoehn and Yahr Stage 2, classified as having no balance impairment, showed low Community Balance and Mobility scores and a history of falls, suggesting early risk detection is possible.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
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 used convenience sampling, which may introduce bias. The sample size for Stage 3 patients was small, limiting the reliability of subgroup analyses for this group. The study did not establish cut-off scores for the Community Balance and Mobility scale in Parkinson's disease. Fallers and non-fallers were compared based on history, but the study did not prospectively track falls to confirm predictive validity.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume the Community Balance and Mobility scale is validated for Parkinson's disease or that it predicts future falls; this study only shows it correlates with other tests and detects deficits in a cross-sectional snapshot, without establishing clinical cut-offs or prospective predictive power.