| Title |
Screening for balance disorders in mildly affected multiple sclerosis patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Neurology, December 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00415-011-6366-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Malou H. J. Fanchamps, Henrik Gensicke, Jens Kuhle, Ludwig Kappos, John H. J. Allum, Özgür Yaldizli |
| Abstract |
Multiple sclerosis (MS) patients often complain about balance problems when Romberg's test and tandem gait are normal. The aim of the study was to determine if measures of trunk sway taken during a battery of stance and gait tasks could be used to detect subclinical balance disorders. We recorded trunk angular sway in the pitch and roll directions from 20 MS patients (EDSS 1.4 ± 0.5) and 20 age- and gender-matched healthy controls (HCs), during 12 stance and gait tasks. We filmed 22 subjects simultaneously. Two neurologists assessed the videos, deciding whether task performance was pathological. Sway measures were significantly different between patients and HCs in eight out of 12 balance tasks. The most significant differences between MS patients and HCs were pitch angle range standing on one leg with eyes open on a firm surface (mean 3.13° vs. 2.09°, p = 0.005), and on a foam support surface (mean 6.24° vs. 2.96°, p = 0.006), pitch velocity range walking 8 m with eyes closed (mean 75.5 vs. 50.2°/s, p < 0.001) and pitch velocity range walking 3 m on heels (mean 85.37 vs. 60.9°/s, p = 0.002). Multivariate analysis revealed a model with three tasks which detected balance disorders in 84% of the MS patients and 90% of the HCs correctly. The neurologists achieved accuracies of 30% for the MS patients and 82% for the HCs. Using trunk sway measures during stance and gait tasks is a sensitive screening method for balance problems in MS patients, and is more accurate than assessment by trained neurologists. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 90 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 12% |
| Researcher | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 22 | 24% |
| Unknown | 17 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 12% |
| Engineering | 8 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 8% |
| Psychology | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 16% |
| Unknown | 25 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 October 2012.
All research outputs
#13,661,681
of 22,660,862 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurology
#2,857
of 4,445 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,700
of 243,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurology
#25
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,660,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,445 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 243,043 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.