Reproducibility of the Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest) and the Mini-BESTest in school-aged children.

This study evaluated the intra-rater, inter-rater and test-retest reproducibility of the Full-BESTest and Mini-BESTest when assessing postural control in children. Thirty-four children aged 7-17 years participated in intra-rater and inter-rater evaluation, and 22 children repeated assessment six weeks later for evaluation of test-retest reliability. Postural control was assessed using the Full Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Full-BESTest) and the short-form Mini-BESTest. Intra-rater, inter-rater and test-retest reproducibility were examined using video assessment. Test-retest reproducibility was also assessed in real-time. Reproducibility was examined by agreement and reliability statistics. Agreement was calculated using percentage of agreement, Limits of Agreement and Smallest Detectable Change. Reliability was calculated using Intra-class Correlation Coefficients. Results showed that the reliability of Total Scores was excellent for the Full-BESTest for all conditions (all ICCs>0.82), whereas the Mini-BESTest ranged from fair to excellent (ICC=0.56-0.86). Percentage of Domain Scores with good-excellent reliability (ICCs>0.60) was slightly higher for the Full-BESTest (66%) compared to the Mini-BESTest (59%). Smallest Detectable Change scores were good to excellent for the Full-BESTest (2%-6%) and for the Mini-BESTest (5%-10%) relative to total test scores. Both the Full-BESTest and Mini-BESTest can discriminate postural control abilities within and between days in school-aged children. The Full-BESTest has slightly better reproducibility and a broader range of items, which could be the most useful version for treatment planning. We propose minor modifications to improve reproducibility for children, and indicate the modified version by the title Kids-BESTest. Future psychometric research is recommended for specific paediatric clinical populations.

Can epinephrine inhalations be substituted for epinephrine injection in children at risk for systemic anaphylaxis?

BACKGROUND: For out-of-hospital treatment of anaphylaxis, inhalation of epinephrine from a pressurized metered-dose inhaler is sometimes recommended as a noninvasive, user-friendly alternative to an epinephrine injection. OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of administering an adequate epinephrine dose from a metered-dose inhaler in children at risk for anaphylaxis by assessing the rate and extent of epinephrine absorption after inhalation. METHODS: We performed a prospective, randomized, observer-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study in 19 asymptomatic children with a history of anaphylaxis. Based on the child's weight, 10, 15, or 20 carefully supervised epinephrine or placebo inhalations were attempted. Before dosing, and at intervals from 5 to 180 minutes after dosing, we monitored plasma epinephrine concentrations, blood glucose, heart rate, blood pressure, and adverse effects. RESULTS: Eleven children (mean +/- standard error of the mean: 9 +/- 1 years and 33 +/- 3 kg) in the epinephrine group were able to inhale 11 +/- 2 (range: 3-20) puffs, equivalent to 74% +/- 7% of the precalculated dose or 0.078 +/- 0.009 mg/kg. They achieved a mean peak plasma epinephrine concentration of 1822 +/- 413 (range: 230-4518) pg/mL at 32.7 +/- 6.2 minutes. Eight children (10 +/- 1 years of age and 33 +/- 5 kg) in the placebo group were able to inhale 12 +/- 2 (range: 8-20) puffs, 89% +/- 3% of the precalculated dose, and had a peak endogenous plasma epinephrine concentration of 1316 +/- 247 (range: 522-2687) pg/mL at 44.4 +/- 16.7 minutes. In the children receiving epinephrine compared with those receiving placebo, mean plasma epinephrine concentrations were not significantly higher at any time, mean blood glucose concentrations were significantly higher from 10 to 30 minutes, mean heart rate was not significantly different at any time, and mean systolic and diastolic blood pressures were not significantly increased at most times. After the inhalations of epinephrine or placebo, the children complained of bad taste and many experienced cough or dizziness. After inhaling epinephrine, 1 child developed nausea, pallor, and muscle twitching. CONCLUSIONS: Despite expert coaching, because of the number of epinephrine inhalations required and the bad taste of the inhalations, most children were unable to inhale sufficient epinephrine to increase their plasma epinephrine concentrations promptly and significantly. Therefore, we urge caution in recommending epinephrine inhalation as a substitute for epinephrine injection for out-of-hospital treatment of anaphylaxis symptoms in children.