Schlenstedt C, Brombacher S, Hartwigsen G, et al. Comparison of the Fullerton Advanced Balance Scale, Mini-BESTest, and Berg Balance Scale to Predict Falls in Parkinson Disease. Physical Therapy. 2016. DOI 10.2522/ptj.20150249
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.20150249
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.
Schlenstedt C, Brombacher S, Hartwigsen G, et al. Comparison of the Fullerton Advanced Balance Scale, Mini-BESTest, and Berg Balance Scale to Predict Falls in Parkinson Disease. Physical Therapy. 2016. DOI 10.2522/ptj.20150249
Schlenstedt C, Brombacher S, Hartwigsen G, Weisser B, Möller B, Deuschl G. Comparison of the Fullerton Advanced Balance Scale, Mini-BESTest, and Berg Balance Scale to Predict Falls in Parkinson Disease. Physical Therapy. 2016;96(4):494–501. DOI 10.2522/ptj.20150249
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 every empirical component in revised balance P35–38 and Table1 rowP82: N85,11DBS/8rehabilitation exclusions,N66 with33futurefallers,30priorfallersincluding23futurefallers; ON,fixed order,two trained examiners,duplicate-task scoring,eligibility and missing diaries. Table2 has10+14+14=38 screened items; Methods specifies median-split/P<.05/OR>2 or<.5 plus collinearity filtering and two models. All AUCs,CIs,cutoffs,sensitivities,specificities match Table3. The six-item model and the tandem-only model are exploratory; no resampling,externalvalidation or fall-history-baseline comparison reported. Source locator: archived source evidence pp496–500,Figure1,Tables1–3; originalFigure1 visually inspected. Limit: Historical access limitations in older version are now closed; no clinical-utility validation implied.
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 P35–38/P82: headline N85,19 excluded,N66/33 fallers; ON,fixed FAB/Mini/Berg order, duplicated tasks; all scale AUCs/CIs/cutoffs/sensitivities/specificities, six-item and tandem model AUCs, candidate criteria and repeated-fall AUCs corroborated in the newly observed publisher transcription. Source locator: archived source evidence; official article https://academic.oup.com/ptj/article/96/4/494/2686498; indexed abstract Limit: Provenance is a prior AI source transcription, not independently re-opened original body. Exact 11 DBS/8 rehabilitation split,30 prior/23 future overlap,38 screened-item count, squared-distance cutoff procedure, and negative claims about absent coefficients/resampling were not independently reverified. Those clauses remain unverified.
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 every empirical component in revised balance P35–38 and Table1 rowP82: N85,11DBS/8rehabilitation exclusions,N66 with33futurefallers,30priorfallersincluding23futurefallers; ON,fixed order,two trained examiners,duplicate-task scoring,eligibility and missing diaries. Table2 has10+14+14=38 screened items; Methods specifies median-split/P<.05/OR>2 or<.5 plus collinearity filtering and two models. All AUCs,CIs,cutoffs,sensitivities,specificities match Table3. The six-item model and the tandem-only model are exploratory; no resampling,externalvalidation or fall-history-baseline comparison reported. Source locator: archived source evidence pp496–500,Figure1,Tables1–3; originalFigure1 visually inspected. Limit: Historical access limitations in older version are now closed; no clinical-utility validation implied.
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 P35–38/P82: headline N85,19 excluded,N66/33 fallers; ON,fixed FAB/Mini/Berg order, duplicated tasks; all scale AUCs/CIs/cutoffs/sensitivities/specificities, six-item and tandem model AUCs, candidate criteria and repeated-fall AUCs corroborated in the newly observed publisher transcription. Source locator: archived source evidence; official article https://academic.oup.com/ptj/article/96/4/494/2686498; indexed abstract Limit: Provenance is a prior AI source transcription, not independently re-opened original body. Exact 11 DBS/8 rehabilitation split,30 prior/23 future overlap,38 screened-item count, squared-distance cutoff procedure, and negative claims about absent coefficients/resampling were not independently reverified. Those clauses remain unverified.
Limitations: Only scoped comparisons, not whole-paper certification.
Reports citing this source
- Standing balance assessment and prognosis in Parkinson’s disease · reference 22 · original reference
- Standing balance assessment and prognosis in Parkinson’s disease · reference 3 · 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