ABSTRACT
Introduction：There are few detailed evaluations of upper extremity function in Japan, especially for cervical spinal cord injury (CSCI). The capabilities of upper extremity test (CUE-T) evaluates upper extremity function, is specialized for CSCI, and is internationally used；however, there are few reports from Japan. This study verified the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the CUE-T in Japan.Methods：We determined the interrater reliability, internal consistency, weighted kappa coefficient, intraclass correlation coefficient, and Cronbach's α coefficient for acute and chronic CSCI. The correlation coefficient with other evaluations was calculated and validated. Furthermore, the evaluation was performed twice at regular intervals, and the correlation between the change in CUE-T and other evaluations and the sensitivity to change using the standardized response mean (SRM) were verified.Results：The weighted kappa coefficient was 0.61-1.00, intraclass correlation coefficient was ≥0.9, and Cronbach's α coefficient were ≥0.9. The CUE-T and other evaluation methods showed moderate to strong correlations. In addition, the amount of change between CUE-T and the other evaluations were significantly correlated, and the SRM was ≥0.8.Discussion：In Japan, the CUE-T has been suggested to have good reliability, validity, responsiveness, and interpretability as an evaluation of upper extremity function in patients with CSCI. We will continue to verify the interpretability of the CUE-T and consider its dissemination in Japan.
ABSTRACT
Introduction：There are few detailed evaluations of upper extremity function in Japan, especially for cervical spinal cord injury (CSCI). The capabilities of upper extremity test (CUE-T) evaluates upper extremity function, is specialized for CSCI, and is internationally used；however, there are few reports from Japan. This study verified the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the CUE-T in Japan.Methods：We determined the interrater reliability, internal consistency, weighted kappa coefficient, intraclass correlation coefficient, and Cronbach's α coefficient for acute and chronic CSCI. The correlation coefficient with other evaluations was calculated and validated. Furthermore, the evaluation was performed twice at regular intervals, and the correlation between the change in CUE-T and other evaluations and the sensitivity to change using the standardized response mean (SRM) were verified.Results：The weighted kappa coefficient was 0.61-1.00, intraclass correlation coefficient was ≥0.9, and Cronbach's α coefficient were ≥0.9. The CUE-T and other evaluation methods showed moderate to strong correlations. In addition, the amount of change between CUE-T and the other evaluations were significantly correlated, and the SRM was ≥0.8.Discussion：In Japan, the CUE-T has been suggested to have good reliability, validity, responsiveness, and interpretability as an evaluation of upper extremity function in patients with CSCI. We will continue to verify the interpretability of the CUE-T and consider its dissemination in Japan.
ABSTRACT
Objective：The Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest) and Berg Balance Scale (BBS) are widely used to test balance function in adults. However, the information on the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the measure has not been consolidated. This review summarizes all available information on the MCID for the Mini-BESTest and BBS.Methods：We searched three electronic databases (PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature, and Web of Knowledge) for relevant literature and additionally conducted a hand search.We included all articles that reported an MCID for the Mini-BESTest and BBS.We excluded articles if the MCID was determined by a procedure other than receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Articles were abstracted for information on participants, interventions, balance assessment documentation, and the determination of MCID.Results：A search yielded 21 articles on the Mini-BESTest and 87 articles on the BBS, four articles on the Mini-BESTest and six articles on the BBS were selected based on adherence to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The MCIDs with an area under the ROC curve of 0.7 or greater ranged from 1.5-4.5 points for the Mini-BESTest and 3.5-6 points for the BBS.Conclusion：A change of 1.5-4.5 points for the Mini-BESTest and 3.5-6 points for the BBS may be clinically important across multiple patient groups.
ABSTRACT
The yips represent a disorder that makes it challenging for an individual to perform automatic and coordinated movements in sports activities. The cause of the yips is not sufficiently clarified, and limited information is available regarding throwing yips in baseball. Therefore, this study was designed to clarify the incidence and characteristics of the throwing yips among college baseball players. Total 107 players of the college baseball team participated in the study and completed the questionnaire by answering questions about their experience of the yips (loss of control to throw the ball accurately for more than 1 month), the symptom intensity, and changes observed in the symptoms in different situations. The 47.1% of players met the definition of throwing yips. The symptoms of the yips were more pronounced with short-distances and low intensity of throwing. Moreover, there were various subjective symptoms, such as the issue about co-contraction of the upper limb, sensory function, body ownership, and movement planning. Various physical symptoms associated with throwing yips suggest that the yips are not only a disorder of motor skills, but result from movement disorders. The present results show that the occurrence of the yips depends on the throwing condition; this finding provides useful insights into the mechanism and the treatment of the yips. Interdisciplinary studies that aim to elucidate the cause of the yips and develop effective intervention are necessary.
ABSTRACT
Objective：The Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest) and Berg Balance Scale (BBS) are widely used to test balance function in adults. However, the information on the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the measure has not been consolidated. This review summarizes all available information on the MCID for the Mini-BESTest and BBS.Methods：We searched three electronic databases (PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature, and Web of Knowledge) for relevant literature and additionally conducted a hand search.We included all articles that reported an MCID for the Mini-BESTest and BBS.We excluded articles if the MCID was determined by a procedure other than receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Articles were abstracted for information on participants, interventions, balance assessment documentation, and the determination of MCID.Results：A search yielded 21 articles on the Mini-BESTest and 87 articles on the BBS, four articles on the Mini-BESTest and six articles on the BBS were selected based on adherence to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The MCIDs with an area under the ROC curve of 0.7 or greater ranged from 1.5-4.5 points for the Mini-BESTest and 3.5-6 points for the BBS.Conclusion：A change of 1.5-4.5 points for the Mini-BESTest and 3.5-6 points for the BBS may be clinically important across multiple patient groups.