Almeida LRS, Valenca GT, Negreiros NN, et al. Comparison of Self-report and Performance-Based Balance Measures for Predicting Recurrent Falls in People With Parkinson Disease: Cohort Study. Physical Therapy. 2016. DOI 10.2522/ptj.20150168
This note indexes a cited or audit-added source. It may be an original study, review, guideline, form or methods reference. Treat the specific design and the evidence below as authoritative; a source note is not automatically a primary study.
DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20150168
Bibliographic record from the original reports
Access labels embedded in these original reference strings are historical. Current access and exact checked components are stated separately below.
Almeida LRS, Valenca GT, Negreiros NN, et al. Comparison of Self-report and Performance-Based Balance Measures for Predicting Recurrent Falls in People With Parkinson Disease: Cohort Study. Physical Therapy. 2016. DOI 10.2522/ptj.20150168
Almeida LRS, Valença GT, Negreiros NN, Pinto EB, Oliveira-Filho J. Comparison of Self-report and Performance-Based Balance Measures for Predicting Recurrent Falls in People With Parkinson Disease: Cohort Study. Physical Therapy. 2016;96(7):1074–1084. DOI 10.2522/ptj.20150168
Conditions: COND-PD Parkinson’s disease
Scoped audit evidence
These are source- and component-level audit summaries as of 3 October 2026. Access and comparison scope can differ by report; none certifies every result or the underlying raw data.
Parkinson’s disease — balance
- access status: complete_original_PDF
Latest listed audit check, current for its stated components. Later recovery/refinement here supersedes earlier access limitations only where explicitly stated; it does not resolve unrelated source contradictions.
Independently checked revised balance P43–46 and rowP85 against complete original PDF. Methodspp1075–1077 confirms independent ambulation/aids allowed,ON1–2h,exclusions,onePT,fixed sequence,~60minutes,calendars/monthlycalls,12month>=2falls. Figure1 visually confirms229baseline/fourdeaths/225analysed; Results84events/70.7meanage. OriginalTable2 visually confirms FRT.74(.67–.79),<=17cm,.56(.45–.67)/.82(.75–.88);BBS.79(.73–.84),<=49,.74(.63–.83)/.74(.66–.81),AIC105. Table3 confirms BBS+FESI AIC98,.65(.55–.75)/.83(.76–.88),posttest70%/20%;Discussion specifies both thresholds. All15pairs/20triples tabulated;Table4bestAIC97–98 withlower sensitivity. Noninferiority margin notreported; no combinedAUC/calibration/resampling/externalvalidation/fall-historybaseline model. Printed BBS+TUG13% negative risk conflicts with LR−.51 and84/225:23.3% calculated. Table3footnote calls n positive-test count but55/84 matches sensitivity.65, so report's true-positive concern is justified. Source locator: archived source evidence pp1075–1082,Figure1 andTables2–4; audit evidence record audit evidence record Limit: Source HTML Table2 differs from PDF in FRT sensitivity lowerCI(.46vs.45); report correctly follows originalPDF. Source-table errors do not justify silently replacing allpublished model numbers.
Earlier audit check 1 (historical evidence record). Its access limitations are superseded wherever the latest check above explicitly closes them. Retained for the distinct components and provenance, not as a current access statement.
Balance P43–46/P85: original abstract and primary publisher/Table2 excerpt confirm225/84/12months,mean70.7,229baseline/4lost,ROC Youden selection and separate dichotomous models. Table2 confirmsFRT AUC.74(.67–.79),cut17,sens.56(.45–.67 inPDF;.46 lowerboundHTML),spec.82(.75–.88);BBS.79(.73–.84),cut49,sens.74(.63–.83),spec.74(.66–.81),AIC105. Primary Table3 confirms FESI+BBS AIC98,sens.65(.55–.75),spec.83(.76–.88),posttest.70/.20. BBS+TUG printednegative.13 conflicts with LR−.51 and84/225prevalence: calculated.233. Table3 n55 versus84eventssensitivity.65 is compatible with true positives, not totalpositive. Source locator: archived source evidence; archived source evidence; archived source evidence; original article pp1077–1079 reproduced inauthor thesis UFBA ri/29713 Limit: Full Methods, Table4 and all footnotes not fully recovered: precise4deaths,onePT/ON1–2h/60min/exclusion protocol, all20triples,AND classification rule, margin absence and absent calibration/optimism correction remain unverified as final-article assertions. Companion2015cohort supplies related protocol but not substituted for original2016. Original Table2HTML andPDF differ in FRT sensitivityCI lowerbound, so no correction imposed.
Limitations: Only scoped comparisons, not whole-paper certification.
Parkinson’s disease — balance1
- access status: complete_original_PDF
Latest listed audit check, current for its stated components. Later recovery/refinement here supersedes earlier access limitations only where explicitly stated; it does not resolve unrelated source contradictions.
Independently checked revised balance P43–46 and rowP85 against complete original PDF. Methodspp1075–1077 confirms independent ambulation/aids allowed,ON1–2h,exclusions,onePT,fixed sequence,~60minutes,calendars/monthlycalls,12month>=2falls. Figure1 visually confirms229baseline/fourdeaths/225analysed; Results84events/70.7meanage. OriginalTable2 visually confirms FRT.74(.67–.79),<=17cm,.56(.45–.67)/.82(.75–.88);BBS.79(.73–.84),<=49,.74(.63–.83)/.74(.66–.81),AIC105. Table3 confirms BBS+FESI AIC98,.65(.55–.75)/.83(.76–.88),posttest70%/20%;Discussion specifies both thresholds. All15pairs/20triples tabulated;Table4bestAIC97–98 withlower sensitivity. Noninferiority margin notreported; no combinedAUC/calibration/resampling/externalvalidation/fall-historybaseline model. Printed BBS+TUG13% negative risk conflicts with LR−.51 and84/225:23.3% calculated. Table3footnote calls n positive-test count but55/84 matches sensitivity.65, so report's true-positive concern is justified. Source locator: archived source evidence pp1075–1082,Figure1 andTables2–4; audit evidence record audit evidence record Limit: Source HTML Table2 differs from PDF in FRT sensitivity lowerCI(.46vs.45); report correctly follows originalPDF. Source-table errors do not justify silently replacing allpublished model numbers.
Earlier audit check 1 (historical evidence record). Its access limitations are superseded wherever the latest check above explicitly closes them. Retained for the distinct components and provenance, not as a current access statement.
Balance P43–46/P85: original abstract and primary publisher/Table2 excerpt confirm225/84/12months,mean70.7,229baseline/4lost,ROC Youden selection and separate dichotomous models. Table2 confirmsFRT AUC.74(.67–.79),cut17,sens.56(.45–.67 inPDF;.46 lowerboundHTML),spec.82(.75–.88);BBS.79(.73–.84),cut49,sens.74(.63–.83),spec.74(.66–.81),AIC105. Primary Table3 confirms FESI+BBS AIC98,sens.65(.55–.75),spec.83(.76–.88),posttest.70/.20. BBS+TUG printednegative.13 conflicts with LR−.51 and84/225prevalence: calculated.233. Table3 n55 versus84eventssensitivity.65 is compatible with true positives, not totalpositive. Source locator: archived source evidence; archived source evidence; archived source evidence; original article pp1077–1079 reproduced inauthor thesis UFBA ri/29713 Limit: Full Methods, Table4 and all footnotes not fully recovered: precise4deaths,onePT/ON1–2h/60min/exclusion protocol, all20triples,AND classification rule, margin absence and absent calibration/optimism correction remain unverified as final-article assertions. Companion2015cohort supplies related protocol but not substituted for original2016. Original Table2HTML andPDF differ in FRT sensitivityCI lowerbound, so no correction imposed.
Limitations: Only scoped comparisons, not whole-paper certification.
Reports citing this source
- Standing balance assessment and prognosis in Parkinson’s disease · reference 23 · original reference
- Standing balance assessment and prognosis in Parkinson’s disease · reference 22 · original reference
Update record
- 2026-10-03: Created from the supplied reports and final scoped audit. New evidence should be appended with source version, access date, exact locator and affected report links.
Updating the wiki · Evidence and status guide