Validity and reliability of the Balance Error Score System (BESS) Thai version in patients with chronic non-specific neck pain.

BACKGROUND: Neck pain has been found to affect the somatosensory system, which can lead to impaired balance control. To assess the balance of patients with neck pain and other conditions, the balance error scoring system (BESS) is commonly used as a static balance measurement tool. However, this tool is seldom used in Thailand due to its English language format. OBJECTIVE: To translate and determine the content, convergent validity, and reliability of a Thai version of the BESS tool. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A process of cross-cultural adaptation was utilized to translate BESS into a Thai version, called BESS-TH. To assess content validity, five physical therapy lecturers specializing in the musculoskeletal field used BESS to measure balance in participants with neck pain. For the convergent validity process, 130 patients diagnosed with chronic non-specific neck pain (CNSNP) were randomly assessed using four static balance tests (BESS, Single-leg balance test (SLBT), Romberg test, and Tandem stance test). For reliability, two assessors with varying years of work experience independently assessed videos of the participants twice using the BESS-TH, with a minimum 7-day interval between assessments. RESULTS: The BESS-TH used to assess balance of patients with neck pain demonstrated acceptable content validity (index of item objective congruence (IOC) = 0.87). The Spearman's Rank Correlation Coefficient was calculated between the BESS-TH and three other measures: the SLBT with eyes open and eyes closed, the Romberg test with eyes open and eyes closed, and the Tandem stance test with eyes open and Tandem stance test with eyes closed. The values obtained were as follows: -0.672, -0.712, -0.367, -0.529, -0.570, and -0.738, respectively. The inter-rater and intra-rater reliability were 0.922 (95% CI = 0.864-0.956) and 0.971 (95% CI = 0.950-0.983), respectively. Minimum detectable change (MDC) for the total BESS score of inter-rater and intra-rater reliability were 7.16 and 4.34 points, respectively. CONCLUSION: The BESS-Thai version was acceptable, reliable, and valid for evaluating balance performance in patients with CNSNP. This tool can be used and applied to clinically evaluate postural control in Thailand.

Cervical Spine Instability Screening Tool Thai Version: Assessment of Convergent Validity and Rater Reliability.

Neck pain, dizziness, difficulty supporting the head for an extended period, and impaired movement are all symptoms of cervical spine instability, which may produce cervical spondylolisthesis in patients who have more severe symptoms. To avoid problems and consequences, early detection of cervical spine instability is required. A previous study created a Thai-language version of a cervical spine instability screening tool, named the CSI-TH, and evaluated its content validity. However, other characteristics of the CSI-TH still needed to be evaluated. The objective of the current study was to assess the rater reliability and convergent validity of the CSI-TH. A total of 160 participants with nonspecific chronic neck pain were included in the study. The Neck Disability Index Thai version (NDI-TH), the Visual Analog Scale Thai version (VAS-TH), and the Modified STarT Back Screening Tool Thai version (mSBST-TH) were used to evaluate the convergent validity of the CSI-TH. To determine inter- and intra-rater reliabilities, novice and experienced physical therapists were involved. The results showed that rater reliabilities were excellent: the intra-rater reliability was 0.992 (95% CI = 0.989 ± 0.994), and the inter-rater reliability was 0.987 (95% CI = 0.983 ± 0.991). The convergent validities of the VAS-TH, NDI-TH, and mSBST-TH when compared with the CSI-TH were 0.5446, 0.5545, and 0.5136, respectively (p < 0.01). The CSI-TH was developed for use by physical therapists and is reliable. It can be used by physical therapists, whether they are experienced or novices, and has an acceptable correlation to other neck-related questionnaires. The CSI-TH is concise, suitable for clinical use, and lower-priced when compared to the gold standard in diagnosis for patients with cervical spine instability.

The Effect of Two Types of Back Pillow Support on Transversus Abdominis and Internal Oblique Muscle Fatigue, Patient Satisfaction, and Discomfort Score during Prolonged Sitting.

Natural rubber is considered an economic plant in Thailand and is used to manufacture many products. Foam back pillows have proven to have various benefits for the lower back. However, no study has compared the effects of foam and rubber pillows. Therefore, the current study aimed to compare the efficacy of foam and rubber pillows on transversus abdominis and internal oblique muscle fatigue, patient satisfaction, and discomfort scores during 60 min of prolonged sitting. Thirty healthy participants were invited to the study and randomized into three sitting conditions over three consecutive days. The three groups were as follows: control, foam pillow, and rubber pillow. Our results revealed that the discomfort score increased with the sitting time in all three groups (p < 0.05). The control group had the highest discomfort when compared to the rubber pillow group at 30 min (T4; p = 0.007) and 60 min (T7; p = 0.0001), as well as the foam pillow group at 60 min (T7; p = 0.0001). Participants were more satisfied sitting with the two types of back pillows at the initial time (T1; p = 0.0001) and at 60 min (T7; p = 0.0001) when compared with the control group. Furthermore, the participants were more satisfied with using rubber pillows rather than foam pillows throughout the sitting period (p = 0.0001). The control group experienced more transversus abdominis and internal oblique muscle fatigue at 60 min (T7) of sitting compared to the initial time (T1) (p = 0.038). Thus, sitting with pillow support can decrease deep trunk muscle fatigue, and using a pillow made from natural rubber may ensure greater satisfaction and less discomfort for the user.

Validity of a Screening Tool for Patients with a Sub-Threshold Level of Lumbar Instability: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Lumbar instability (LI) comprises one subgroup of those with chronic low back pain (CLBP); it indicates the impairment of at least one of the spinal stabilizing systems, and radiographic criteria of translation and rotation are used for its diagnosis. Previous studies have developed and tested a screening tool for LI where patients with sub-threshold lumbar instability (STLI) were detected in the initial stage of lumbar pathology using radiographs as a gold standard for diagnosis. The radiographic measurement in STLI lies between the range of translation and rotation of the LI and asymptomatic lumbar motion. However, there are no studies indicating the validity and cut-off points of the screening tool for STLI. The current study aimed to determine the validity of an LI screening tool to support the diagnostic process in patients with STLI. This study design was cross-sectional in nature. A total of 135 participants with CLBP, aged between 20 and 60 years, who had undergone flexion and extension radiographs, answered a screening tool with 14 questions. The cut-off score for identifying STLI using the screening tool was at least 6/14 positive responses to the LI questions. The findings suggested that the LI screening tool we tested is effective for the detection of STLI. The tool can be used in outpatient settings.