Skip to main content

Table 2 Changes in the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test among the groups

From: Effects of Balance Exercise Assist Robot training for patients with hemiparetic stroke: a randomized controlled trial

   Change from baseline Post-intervention (Week 2) Follow-up (Week 4)
Post-intervention Follow-up Group effect   Post-hoc test* Group effect   Post-hoc test*
Week 2 Week 4 F-value P-value vs. IBT vs. CR F-value P-value vs. IBT vs. CR
Total score, mean (SD) BEAR 3.5 (2.1) 5.4 (2.8) †‡ 6.90 0.003 BEAR 0.999 0.016 6.49 0.004 BEAR 0.999 0.006
IBT 3.4 (2.5) 5.2 (3.1) IBT   0.003 IBT   0.012
CR 1.2 (2.4) 1.9 (2.5) CR    CR   
Anticipatory, mean (SD) BEAR 0.5 (0.9) 1.0 (1.0) 0.65 0.525 BEAR    3.31 0.046 BEAR 0.999 0.050
IBT 0.4 (0.8) 0.8 (0.9) IBT    IBT   0.195
CR 0.0 (1.2) 0.2 (1.2) CR    CR   
Reactive postural control, mean (SD) BEAR 0.9 (1.3) 1.3 (1.5)†‡ 1.10 0.342 BEAR    3.48 0.040 BEAR 0.803 0.035
IBT 0.4 (1.3) 0.5 (1.3) IBT    IBT   0.412
CR 0.2 (1.2) 0.1 (0.9) CR    CR   
Sensory orientation, mean (SD) BEAR 0.4 (0.6) 0.8 (1.1) 0.32 0.731 BEAR    0.29 0.751 BEAR   
IBT 0.5 (0.7) 1.0 (1.2) IBT    IBT   
CR 0.5 (0.8) 0.8 (0.8) CR    CR   
Dynamic gait, mean (SD) BEAR 1.7 (1.9) 2.3 (1.5) 5.94 0.005 BEAR 0.999 0.035 4.55 0.016 BEAR 0.999 0.041
IBT 2.2 (2.1) 2.9 (2.5) IBT   0.006 IBT   0.026
CR  − 0.2 (1.8) 0.1 (1.8) CR    CR   
  1. BEAR Balance Exercise Assist Robot; CR conventional rehabilitation; IBT intensive balance training; Mini-BESTest Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test; SD standard deviation
  2. Significant within-group difference from baseline and at 2 weeks. *When statistically significant between-group differences were found (P < 0.05), multiple comparisons between all groups were performed using the Bonferroni correction method