AgingBEAMNCT03532984
Beam Walking Across the Lifespan for Falls Prediction
An observational study of Aging and Parkinson Disease, run by University Medical Center Groningen at 5 sites in 5 countries.
Trial summary
Background: Dynamic balance keeps the vertical projection of the center of mass within the base of support while the center of mass moves. The age-related decrease in dynamic balance is a risk factor for falls. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 20 to 80 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Aging, Parkinson Disease, Stroke
- What is being tested?
- Beam test to predict falls
- How many people
- 432 participants
- Where
- 5 sitesin 5 countries
- Study dates
- 1 Jun 2018to 31 May 2020
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 20 to 80 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: Healthy participants will be recruited from local areas at the four centers using word of mouth and advertisements in public areas, libraries, churches, newspapers, fitness clubs, health care facilities, and on radio, TV, and the Internet. Volunteer participants included will be male and female adults aged over 20, in good health, balance, and mobility.
Who may be able to join
- Volunteer participants included will be male and female adults aged over 20, in good health, balance, and mobility.
Who cannot join
- Positive answer to any of the following questions in a (phone) interview results in exclusion from the study: unable to walk 10-m independently; knee or hip joint replacements ≤6 months before enrollment; uncontrolled cardiovascular disease or angina; neuromuscular disease; diagnosed Parkinson's disease; multiple sclerosis; stroke; cancer therapy ≤ 3 months before enrollment; severe asthma or chronic bronchitis; diagnosed diabetes with neuropathy, poor and uncorrected vision, and a score ≤27 on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE).
Trial locations and contacts
5 sites in 5 countries.
5 sites in 5 countries
Brazil1 site
School of Physical Education and Sport of Ribeirão Preto
São Paulo
Renato Moraes, PhD
Hungary1 site
Somogy County Kaposi Mór Teaching Hospital
Kaposvár
József Tollár
About this study
Official title: Beam Walking to Assess Dynamic Balance in Health and Disease: A Protocol for the 'BEAM' Multi-center Observational Study
Background: Dynamic balance keeps the vertical projection of the center of mass within the base of support while the center of mass moves. The age-related decrease in dynamic balance is a risk factor for falls. Dynamic balance tests are used to predict the risks for falls and eventual falls but the psychometric properties of most tests assessing dynamic balance are unsatisfactory and comprise no actual loss of balance while walking. Objectives: Using beam walking distance as a measure of dynamic balance, we will determine the psychometric properties, lifespan and patient reference values, the relationship with selected 'dynamic balance tests', and the accuracy of beam walking distance to predict falls. Methods: This cross-sectional observational study will examine healthy adults in 7 decades (n=432) at 4 centers. Center 5 will examine patients (n=100) diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, stroke, and balance disorders. At Test 1, all participants will be measured for demographics, medical history, grip and leg strength, short physical performance battery, static balance on a force platform, and dynamic balance using beam walking (4m-long, 4, 8, and 12 cm wide) under single (beam walking only) and dual task conditions (beam walking while concurrently performing an arithmetic task). In addition, cognitive function (global cognition, attention, executive function, processing speed, memory) will be assessed. Patients and healthy participants age 50+ will be additionally measured for fear of falling, history of falls, miniBESTest, functional reach on a force platform, timed up and go, and reactive balance. At Test 2, 7-10 days after Test 1, healthy adults young and age 50+ (n=40) will be re-tested for reliability of beam walking performance. All participants age 50+ will be re-called to report fear of falling and fall history 6 and 12 months after Test 1. Conclusion: The investigators expect to find that beam walking performance vis-à-vis the traditionally used balance outcomes predicts more accurately fall risks and falls.
Read the detailed description
Introduction Natural aging is associated with late life mobility disability. Walking speed slows, steps become shorter and variable, and balance while standing and walking becomes unstable, especially when these mobility tasks are combined with a motor or a cognitive task. Gait, balance, and muscle impairments cause falls in ~30% and ~50% of adults age over 65 and 80, respectively. Nearly 50% of outdoor falls occur while walking. Measuring dynamic balance is thus important to characterize the current state of postural control and identify those who are likely to experience severe levels of mobility disability, including falls in the future.
Dynamic balance is the maintenance of equilibrium while walking with and without a self- or external perturbation and resisting internal or external perturbations while standing. In particular, dynamic balance keeps the vertical projection of the center of mass (COM) within the base of support while the COM moves. To date, dynamic balance has been inferred from 'functional tests' without an actual balance loss.
Functional tests measure dynamic balance indirectly and many suffer from a ceiling or floor effect and are insensitive to interventions and clinical status. The Berg-Balance-Scale (BBS), designed for frail old adults, suffers from poor sensitivity to treatment effects, it has no common interpretation for a given score, unclearly related to mobility status and to the use of mobility aids. The Tinetti Balance and Gait Test is a 'functional test' used for 'dynamic balance' but identified only 11% of non-fallers, suggesting poor specificity. The Timed-up-and-Go (TUG) test does not inform clinicians if patients' static or dynamic balance or walking ability is poor and it predicts falls inconsistently. One leg stand can be difficult for many old adults and is unrelated to gait stability. Functional-reach (FR) has no walking element and patients compensate for balance problems during walking. The BESTest is organized around systems underlying balance control and similar to the Physiological Profile Approach that takes over 30 minutes to administer, albeit it has good reliability and higher sensitivity to change than the BBS. Its short version, the miniBESTest takes only ~15 minutes to administer and has good reliability and discriminative validity between fallers and non-fallers, yet the reported scores vary widely and suggest a floor effect in patients with spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, acquired brain injury, and multiple trauma. Static posturography measures static balance and correlates poorly with dynamic balance. The Star Excursion Balance Test, the Modified Bass Test, and the Dynamic Leap and Balance Test, involve unnatural movements or rapid change-of-directions seniors never perform. Dynamic posturography refers to responses to a perturbation given in standing or walking. The face validity of stability margin or the medial acceleration of the COM and the relationship between these variables and walking balance is unclear. Time-to-stabilization tests involve a single jump landing on the floor, unsuitable for seniors. These latter tests and those measuring center of pressure (COP) outcomes require a force platform, making the tests unsuitable for clinicians. Inertial sensors can quantify walking balance during TUG but the data analysis of gait dynamics requires sophisticated software.
Beam walking performance to measure dynamic balance in old age. The single most important limitation of 'dynamic balance' tests is a failure to quantify an actual balance loss while walking. Currently there is no laboratory-based or clinical test to assess a loss of dynamic balance during walking, walking balance impairment, and fall risk in a clinical setting. Beam walking could measure dynamic balance more accurately than tests currently in use because the reduction in base of support transiently increases instability associated with the pivoting of the COM over the stance leg. Beam compared with floor walking increases the challenge to dynamic balance because the performer must control the path of the COM not to cross the edge of foot support to stay on the beam. Such crossing often happens in old adults and a misstep, a 'fall', ensues. The instability during COM transfer while transiently on one leg and on a narrow beam is the key and unique element of beam walking that could amplify (sub)clinical dysfunctions in dynamic balance more effectively than current tests and make beam walking performance a novel biomarker of dynamic balance in health and disease.
Application of beam walking in patients with neurological disorders. Dysfunction in dynamic balance is a precursor to the high incidence of falls in neurological patients and identifying fall-related risk factors is a priority. Parkinson's disease (PD), multiple sclerosis (MS), and stroke patients suffered one (47%) or multiple (32%) falls at 6-months follow-up. While the etiology leading to a fall differs between these patient categories, dysfunction of dynamic balance is a key common contributing element to mobility disability. Remarkably, disease type and balance confidence only and none of the 'dynamic balance tests' or 'functional tests' (BBS, Dynamic Gait Index, TUG, 10-m walking test) predicted single and recurrent falls. There is thus a need to determine if beam walking compared with the currently used tests of dynamic balance is more accurate in diagnosing fall risk and predicting falls in these patients.
Cognitive dual-tasking during beam walking. Even though gait speed slows with aging, implying an impaired dynamic balance, the conscious, cognitive, and cortical control of walking still increases. In particular, when old adults couple walking with a cognitive task such as talking, calculation, or memory recall, the demand for attention and executive function increases to control gait. When dual-tasking, old adults' steps become variable and gait stability decreases. However, it is unknown if the dual task-related gait slowing is caused by the cognitive task affecting the dynamic balance element of gait or if the effects are global on speed and rhythm.
Aims, hypotheses. This study will determine: 1. The psychometric properties and 2. Lifespan and patient reference values for dynamic balance as determined by beam walking with and without cognitive dual-tasking; 3. The statistical relationship between dynamic balance (i.e., beam walking performance) and selected 'functional tests' currently used to measure dynamic balance, and 4. The risk factors and predictors of falls in neurological patients. The global hypothesis is that age, disease type, and cognitive dual-tasking affect dynamic balance as measured by beam walking performance (distance, velocity, step number). In healthy old adults, determinants of single and dual-task beam walking performance are expected to include age, sex, executive function, physical activity, leg strength, and one leg COP variability. In patients with neurological disorders, we expect that disease type, balance confidence, executive function affect single-task beam performance. Because of the novelty, it is unclear if patients can perform dual-task beam walking. The investigators expect to find that beam walking performance vis-à-vis the traditionally used balance outcomes predicts more accurately fall risks and falls.
Methods Design. This is a 5-site, multicenter cross-sectional observational study using the STROBE checklist. Centers 1-4 will examine healthy old adults (n=432) and Center 5 will examine patients with a diagnosis of PD, MS, stroke, and non-specific balance disorders (n=100). Selected healthy participants will repeat only the beam walking measurements at Test 2, 7-10 days after Test 1 to assess reliability (n=40). All participants age 50+ will complete fall history at Test 1 and at 6 and 12 months follow-ups. We selected age 50, as balance starts to decline at this age. The primary outcome for all participants is beam-walking performance in meters. Age, sex, cognitive function, physical activity, and leg strength are determinants of dynamic balance and thus the sample size must be set to meet recommendations of at least 4-5 times more participants than predictors. To increase external validity, universal reference values should be broad and representative of the heterogeneity in the population, which will be achieved by testing healthy male and female participants in four countries on three continents.
Participants. Healthy participants will be recruited from local areas at the four centers using word of mouth and advertisements in public areas, libraries, churches, newspapers, fitness clubs, health care facilities, and on radio, TV, and the Internet. Volunteer participants included will be male and female adults aged over 20, in good health, balance, and mobility.
Positive answer to any of the following questions in a (phone) interview results in exclusion from the study: unable to walk 10-m independently; knee or hip joint replacements ≤6 months before enrollment; uncontrolled cardiovascular disease or angina; neuromuscular disease; diagnosed Parkinson's disease; multiple sclerosis; stroke; cancer therapy ≤ 3 months before enrollment; severe asthma or chronic bronchitis; diagnosed diabetes with neuropathy, poor and uncorrected vision, and a score ≤27 on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). At the start of the laboratory visit participants will perform the Short-Physical-Performance-Battery (SPPB) and those healthy adults with a score ≤10 for mobility will be excluded.
Center 5 (Kaposvár, Hungary) will recruit patients from the hospital's outpatient day clinic and medical database. Patients will be eligible who report with balance and mobility difficulties and are candidates for or are currently enrolled in rehabilitation. PD patients (Hoehn-Yahr stage of 2 to 3) will meet the UK Brain Bank criteria. MS patients will meet the McDonald criteria of the International Panel on Diagnosis of MS. Stroke patients will meet World Health Organization diagnostic criteria for stroke. Balance disorder patients will be included who visit the outpatient clinic due to a fall and dizziness. Excluded will be those with MMSE <21, major depression (Clinically Useful Depression Outcome score ≥46), severe joint and/or bone disorder interfering with balance and gait (clinical judgment), aphasia if interfering with the comprehension of the aims of the study, MS relapse within 3 months, stroke <1 month before start of study, benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, polyneuropathy, and phobic dizziness. The Statistics section shows the sample sizes.
Ethical committees at each location will approve the study protocol and the consent form, which each participant will read and sign. The study will be conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki.
- Conditions
- Aging, Parkinson Disease, Stroke, Dementia, Diagnoses Disease, Cognitive Impairment
- Being tested
- Beam test to predict falls
- Medical subject headings
- Parkinson Disease, Stroke, Dementia, Cognitive Dysfunction
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Beam test to predict fallsDiagnostic test
Also called Beam walking
Dynamic balance will be determined in all participants during beam walking. The beams are 4m long, 2cm high, and 4, 8, and 12cm wide. After a practice trial, participants will perform three trials on each width with and without a calculation task. Trials will be block-randomized based on beam width then on task. Instructions: 'Traverse the entire length of the beam safely at your preferred speed without stepping off, facing forward, with your arms folded in front of your chest. Trials end when you step off, walk sideways, or unfold the arms.' Outcomes are the sum of length traversed, average velocity, number of steps, and average step length determined from video recordings made at 90° relative to the walking direction with full beam length in view using off-the-shelf video cameras.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| adults aged 20-29 | healthy adults will perform the following tests: Functional tests Mini BESTest Mobility, SPPB Static balance Proactive balance (Reach, TUG) Reactive balance Dynamic balance (beam test) Grip, leg strength Cognitive tests Global cognition Attention, executive f. Processing speed Memory | |
| adults aged 30-39 | healthy adults will perform the following tests: Functional tests Mini BESTest Mobility, SPPB Static balance Proactive balance (Reach, TUG) Reactive balance Dynamic balance (beam test) Grip, leg strength Cognitive tests Global cognition Attention, executive f. Processing speed Memory | |
| adults aged 40-49 | healthy adults will perform the following tests: Functional tests Mini BESTest Mobility, SPPB Static balance Proactive balance (Reach, TUG) Reactive balance Dynamic balance (beam test) Grip, leg strength Cognitive tests Global cognition Attention, executive f. Processing speed Memory | |
| adults aged 50-59 | healthy adults will perform the following tests: Functional tests Mini BESTest Mobility, SPPB Static balance Proactive balance (Reach, TUG) Reactive balance Dynamic balance (beam test to predict falls) Grip, leg strength
Cognitive tests Global cognition Attention, executive f. Processing speed Memory
In the follow up study 6, 12 months after baseline, fear of falling and fall history will be assessed in 50+ Receives: Diagnostic Test: Beam test to predict falls | |
| adults aged 60-69 | healthy adults will perform the following tests: Functional tests Mini BESTest Mobility, SPPB Static balance Proactive balance (Reach, TUG) Reactive balance Dynamic balance (beam test to predict falls) Grip, leg strength
Cognitive tests Global cognition Attention, executive f. Processing speed Memory
In the follow up study 6, 12 months after baseline, fear of falling and fall history will be assessed in 50+ Receives: Diagnostic Test: Beam test to predict falls | |
| adults aged 70-79 | healthy adults will perform the following tests: Functional tests Mini BESTest Mobility, SPPB Static balance Proactive balance (Reach, TUG) Reactive balance Dynamic balance (beam test to predict falls) Grip, leg strength
Cognitive tests Global cognition Attention, executive f. Processing speed Memory
In the follow up study 6, 12 months after baseline, fear of falling and fall history will be assessed in 50+ Receives: Diagnostic Test: Beam test to predict falls | |
| adults aged 80+ | healthy adults will perform the following tests: Functional tests Mini BESTest Mobility, SPPB Static balance Proactive balance (Reach, TUG) Reactive balance Dynamic balance (beam test to predict falls) Grip, leg strength
Cognitive tests Global cognition Attention, executive f. Processing speed Memory
In the follow up study 6, 12 months after baseline, fear of falling and fall history will be assessed in 50+ Receives: Diagnostic Test: Beam test to predict falls | |
| geriatric patients | healthy adults will perform the following tests: Functional tests Mini BESTest Mobility, SPPB Static balance Proactive balance (Reach, TUG) Reactive balance Dynamic balance (beam test to predict falls) Grip, leg strength
Cognitive tests Global cognition Attention, executive f. Processing speed Memory
In the follow up study 6, 12 months after baseline, fear of falling and fall history will be assessed in 50+ Receives: Diagnostic Test: Beam test to predict falls |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
distance in balance beam walking under single and dual-task conditions
Outcomes are the sum of length traversed (3-5 trials, 4m each, 12m maximum), average velocity, number of steps, and average step length determined from video tape recordings (60Hz) made at 90° relative to the walking direction with full beam length in view using off-the-shelf HD video cameras (Kinovea software).
Measured: 2 hours
Secondary outcomes (17)
Physical activity
Physical activity will be estimated by the international physical activity questionnaire in all participants
Measured: 10 minutes
Fall history
Fall history will be determined by having participants age 50+ report falls for the previous 12 months ('Have you experienced a fall over the past 12 months? 'How severe was the most severe fall? (Hospitalization, fracture, nursing home admission).' Patients' hospital fall records will be also consulted if available.
Measured: 10 minutes
Falls efficacy scale-international
Falls efficacy scale-international will determine in participants age 50+ the level of concern about falling during social and physical activities indoors and outdoors. 16-items are being asked on a 4-point Likert scale. The scores are added up to calculate a total score that ranges from 16 to 64. A higher score indicates a greater fear of falling.
Measured: 10 minutes
Balance confidence
Balance confidence will be assessed with the Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale. The scale is in % from 0 (no confidence) to 100 (completely confident)
Measured: 15 minutes
Mini-BESTest
Mini-BESTest identifies systems that control (dynamic) balance.
Measured: 20 minutes
Mobility
Mobility will be measured in all participants by the Short Physical Performance Battery, a composite mobility test.
Measured: 20 minutes
Static steady-state balance
Static steady-state balance will be assessed in all participants using the Romberg and Sharpened Romberg Tests while standing on a force platform with feet closed while holding both arms extended to the front with palms facing upwards and in tandem stance with eyes open and closed for 10s each task.
Measured: 10 minutes
Proactive Balance
Proactive balance will be measured in all participants age 20-29 and 50+ by the functional reach test while standing on a force platform
Measured: 10 minutes
Reactive balance
Reactive balance will be measured in all participants age 20-29 and 50+ by the push and release test
Measured: 10 minutes
Upper extremity strength
Upper extremity strength will be measured in all participants by grip strength
Measured: 10 minutes
Lower extremity strength
Lower extremity strength of the knee extensors will be measured in all participants in the seated position on a dynamometer or by a hand held dynamometer
Measured: 10 minutes
Cognitive status
Cognitive status will be measured in all participants by the Digit Symbol Substitution Test
Measured: 5 minutes
Global cognition
Global cognition will be measured in participants aged 50+ by the Mini Mental State Examination Test
Measured: 5 minutes
Executive function
Executive function will be measured in participants aged 50+ by the phonemic fluency test
Measured: 5 minutes
Attention
Attention will be measured in participants aged 50+ by the Stroop color-word test
Measured: 5 minutes
Verbal memory span
Verbal memory span will be measured in participants aged 50+ by the Digit Span test
Measured: 10 minutes
Visual memory span
Visual memory span will be measured in participants aged 50+ by the Visual Memory Span test
Measured: 10 minutes
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted22 May 2018
- Study start1 Jun 2018 (estimated)
- Primary completion31 May 2019 (estimated)
- Study completion31 May 2020 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (2)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for AgingStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University Medical Center GroningenThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 432 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University Medical Center Groningen
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Dokkyo Medical University, University of Potsdam, Somogy Megyei Kaposi Mór Teaching Hospital, University of Sao Paulo
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Tibor Hortobagyi, University Medical Center Groningen
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03532984
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Beam study
- Other IDs
- UPotsdam
- Acronym
- BEAM
- Status last verified
- May 2018
- First submitted
- 27 Apr 2018
- Last updated
- 22 May 2018
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Hortobagyi T, Vetrovsky T, Uematsu A, Sanders L, da Silva Costa AA, Batistela RA, Moraes R, Granacher U, Szabo-Kora S, Csutoras B, Szephelyi K, Tollar J. Walking on a Balance Beam as a New Measure of Dynamic Balance to Predict Falls in Older Adults and Patients with Neurological Conditions. Sports Med Open. 2024 May 22;10(1):59. doi: 10.1186/s40798-024-00723-7.
PubMed 38775922Hortobagyi T, Uematsu A, Sanders L, Kliegl R, Tollar J, Moraes R, Granacher U. Beam Walking to Assess Dynamic Balance in Health and Disease: A Protocol for the "BEAM" Multicenter Observational Study. Gerontology. 2019;65(4):332-339. doi: 10.1159/000493360. Epub 2018 Oct 18.
PubMed 30336478
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 22 May 2018. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Beam Walking to Assess Dynamic Balance in Health and Disease: A Protocol for the 'BEAM' Multi-center Observational Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03532984
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- BEAM / Beam study
- Conditions
- Aging, Parkinson Disease, Stroke, Dementia, Diagnoses Disease, Cognitive Impairment
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 432 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- University Medical Center GroningenUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Dokkyo Medical University, University of Potsdam, Somogy Megyei Kaposi Mór Teaching Hospital, University of Sao Paulo
- Study start
- 1 Jun 2018 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- 31 May 2019 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 31 May 2020 (estimated)
- First posted
- 22 May 2018 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Background: Dynamic balance keeps the vertical projection of the center of mass within the base of support while the center of mass moves. The age-related decrease in dynamic balance is a risk factor for falls. Dynamic balance tests are used to predict the risks for falls and eventual falls but the psychometric properties of most tests assessing dynamic balance are unsatisfactory and comprise no actual loss of balance while walking. Objectives: Using beam walking distance as a measure of dynamic balance, we will determine the psychometric properties, lifespan and patient reference values, the relationship with selected 'dynamic balance tests', and the accuracy of beam walking distance to predict falls. Methods: This cross-sectional observational study will examine healthy adults in 7 decades (n=432) at 4 centers. Center 5 will examine patients (n=100) diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, stroke, and balance disorders. At Test 1, all participants will be measured for demographics, medical history, grip and leg strength, short physical performance battery, static balance on a force platform, and dynamic balance using beam walking (4m-long, 4, 8, and 12 cm wide) under single (beam walking only) and dual task conditions (beam walking while concurrently performing an arithmetic task). In addition, cognitive function (global cognition, attention, executive function, processing speed, memory) will be assessed. Patients and healthy participants age 50+ will be additionally measured for fear of falling, history of falls, miniBESTest, functional reach on a force platform, timed up and go, and reactive balance. At Test 2, 7-10 days after Test 1, healthy adults young and age 50+ (n=40) will be re-tested for reliability of beam walking performance. All participants age 50+ will be re-called to report fear of falling and fall history 6 and 12 months after Test 1. Conclusion: The investigators expect to find that beam walking performance vis-à-vis the traditionally used balance outcomes predicts more accurately fall risks and falls.
Detailed description
Introduction Natural aging is associated with late life mobility disability. Walking speed slows, steps become shorter and variable, and balance while standing and walking becomes unstable, especially when these mobility tasks are combined with a motor or a cognitive task. Gait, balance, and muscle impairments cause falls in ~30% and ~50% of adults age over 65 and 80, respectively. Nearly 50% of outdoor falls occur while walking. Measuring dynamic balance is thus important to characterize the current state of postural control and identify those who are likely to experience severe levels of mobility disability, including falls in the future.
Dynamic balance is the maintenance of equilibrium while walking with and without a self- or external perturbation and resisting internal or external perturbations while standing. In particular, dynamic balance keeps the vertical projection of the center of mass (COM) within the base of support while the COM moves. To date, dynamic balance has been inferred from 'functional tests' without an actual balance loss.
Functional tests measure dynamic balance indirectly and many suffer from a ceiling or floor effect and are insensitive to interventions and clinical status. The Berg-Balance-Scale (BBS), designed for frail old adults, suffers from poor sensitivity to treatment effects, it has no common interpretation for a given score, unclearly related to mobility status and to the use of mobility aids. The Tinetti Balance and Gait Test is a 'functional test' used for 'dynamic balance' but identified only 11% of non-fallers, suggesting poor specificity. The Timed-up-and-Go (TUG) test does not inform clinicians if patients' static or dynamic balance or walking ability is poor and it predicts falls inconsistently. One leg stand can be difficult for many old adults and is unrelated to gait stability. Functional-reach (FR) has no walking element and patients compensate for balance problems during walking. The BESTest is organized around systems underlying balance control and similar to the Physiological Profile Approach that takes over 30 minutes to administer, albeit it has good reliability and higher sensitivity to change than the BBS. Its short version, the miniBESTest takes only ~15 minutes to administer and has good reliability and discriminative validity between fallers and non-fallers, yet the reported scores vary widely and suggest a floor effect in patients with spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, acquired brain injury, and multiple trauma. Static posturography measures static balance and correlates poorly with dynamic balance. The Star Excursion Balance Test, the Modified Bass Test, and the Dynamic Leap and Balance Test, involve unnatural movements or rapid change-of-directions seniors never perform. Dynamic posturography refers to responses to a perturbation given in standing or walking. The face validity of stability margin or the medial acceleration of the COM and the relationship between these variables and walking balance is unclear. Time-to-stabilization tests involve a single jump landing on the floor, unsuitable for seniors. These latter tests and those measuring center of pressure (COP) outcomes require a force platform, making the tests unsuitable for clinicians. Inertial sensors can quantify walking balance during TUG but the data analysis of gait dynamics requires sophisticated software.
Beam walking performance to measure dynamic balance in old age. The single most important limitation of 'dynamic balance' tests is a failure to quantify an actual balance loss while walking. Currently there is no laboratory-based or clinical test to assess a loss of dynamic balance during walking, walking balance impairment, and fall risk in a clinical setting. Beam walking could measure dynamic balance more accurately than tests currently in use because the reduction in base of support transiently increases instability associated with the pivoting of the COM over the stance leg. Beam compared with floor walking increases the challenge to dynamic balance because the performer must control the path of the COM not to cross the edge of foot support to stay on the beam. Such crossing often happens in old adults and a misstep, a 'fall', ensues. The instability during COM transfer while transiently on one leg and on a narrow beam is the key and unique element of beam walking that could amplify (sub)clinical dysfunctions in dynamic balance more effectively than current tests and make beam walking performance a novel biomarker of dynamic balance in health and disease.
Application of beam walking in patients with neurological disorders. Dysfunction in dynamic balance is a precursor to the high incidence of falls in neurological patients and identifying fall-related risk factors is a priority. Parkinson's disease (PD), multiple sclerosis (MS), and stroke patients suffered one (47%) or multiple (32%) falls at 6-months follow-up. While the etiology leading to a fall differs between these patient categories, dysfunction of dynamic balance is a key common contributing element to mobility disability. Remarkably, disease type and balance confidence only and none of the 'dynamic balance tests' or 'functional tests' (BBS, Dynamic Gait Index, TUG, 10-m walking test) predicted single and recurrent falls. There is thus a need to determine if beam walking compared with the currently used tests of dynamic balance is more accurate in diagnosing fall risk and predicting falls in these patients.
Cognitive dual-tasking during beam walking. Even though gait speed slows with aging, implying an impaired dynamic balance, the conscious, cognitive, and cortical control of walking still increases. In particular, when old adults couple walking with a cognitive task such as talking, calculation, or memory recall, the demand for attention and executive function increases to control gait. When dual-tasking, old adults' steps become variable and gait stability decreases. However, it is unknown if the dual task-related gait slowing is caused by the cognitive task affecting the dynamic balance element of gait or if the effects are global on speed and rhythm.
Aims, hypotheses. This study will determine: 1. The psychometric properties and 2. Lifespan and patient reference values for dynamic balance as determined by beam walking with and without cognitive dual-tasking; 3. The statistical relationship between dynamic balance (i.e., beam walking performance) and selected 'functional tests' currently used to measure dynamic balance, and 4. The risk factors and predictors of falls in neurological patients. The global hypothesis is that age, disease type, and cognitive dual-tasking affect dynamic balance as measured by beam walking performance (distance, velocity, step number). In healthy old adults, determinants of single and dual-task beam walking performance are expected to include age, sex, executive function, physical activity, leg strength, and one leg COP variability. In patients with neurological disorders, we expect that disease type, balance confidence, executive function affect single-task beam performance. Because of the novelty, it is unclear if patients can perform dual-task beam walking. The investigators expect to find that beam walking performance vis-à-vis the traditionally used balance outcomes predicts more accurately fall risks and falls.
Methods Design. This is a 5-site, multicenter cross-sectional observational study using the STROBE checklist. Centers 1-4 will examine healthy old adults (n=432) and Center 5 will examine patients with a diagnosis of PD, MS, stroke, and non-specific balance disorders (n=100). Selected healthy participants will repeat only the beam walking measurements at Test 2, 7-10 days after Test 1 to assess reliability (n=40). All participants age 50+ will complete fall history at Test 1 and at 6 and 12 months follow-ups. We selected age 50, as balance starts to decline at this age. The primary outcome for all participants is beam-walking performance in meters. Age, sex, cognitive function, physical activity, and leg strength are determinants of dynamic balance and thus the sample size must be set to meet recommendations of at least 4-5 times more participants than predictors. To increase external validity, universal reference values should be broad and representative of the heterogeneity in the population, which will be achieved by testing healthy male and female participants in four countries on three continents.
Participants. Healthy participants will be recruited from local areas at the four centers using word of mouth and advertisements in public areas, libraries, churches, newspapers, fitness clubs, health care facilities, and on radio, TV, and the Internet. Volunteer participants included will be male and female adults aged over 20, in good health, balance, and mobility.
Positive answer to any of the following questions in a (phone) interview results in exclusion from the study: unable to walk 10-m independently; knee or hip joint replacements ≤6 months before enrollment; uncontrolled cardiovascular disease or angina; neuromuscular disease; diagnosed Parkinson's disease; multiple sclerosis; stroke; cancer therapy ≤ 3 months before enrollment; severe asthma or chronic bronchitis; diagnosed diabetes with neuropathy, poor and uncorrected vision, and a score ≤27 on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). At the start of the laboratory visit participants will perform the Short-Physical-Performance-Battery (SPPB) and those healthy adults with a score ≤10 for mobility will be excluded.
Center 5 (Kaposvár, Hungary) will recruit patients from the hospital's outpatient day clinic and medical database. Patients will be eligible who report with balance and mobility difficulties and are candidates for or are currently enrolled in rehabilitation. PD patients (Hoehn-Yahr stage of 2 to 3) will meet the UK Brain Bank criteria. MS patients will meet the McDonald criteria of the International Panel on Diagnosis of MS. Stroke patients will meet World Health Organization diagnostic criteria for stroke. Balance disorder patients will be included who visit the outpatient clinic due to a fall and dizziness. Excluded will be those with MMSE <21, major depression (Clinically Useful Depression Outcome score ≥46), severe joint and/or bone disorder interfering with balance and gait (clinical judgment), aphasia if interfering with the comprehension of the aims of the study, MS relapse within 3 months, stroke <1 month before start of study, benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, polyneuropathy, and phobic dizziness. The Statistics section shows the sample sizes.
Ethical committees at each location will approve the study protocol and the consent form, which each participant will read and sign. The study will be conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Number of arms
- 8
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| adults aged 20-29 | – | –healthy adults will perform the following tests: Functional tests Mini BESTest Mobility, SPPB Static balance Proactive balance (Reach, TUG) Reactive balance Dynamic balance (beam test) Grip, leg strength Cognitive tests Global cognition Attention, executive f. Processing speed Memory |
| adults aged 30-39 | – | –healthy adults will perform the following tests: Functional tests Mini BESTest Mobility, SPPB Static balance Proactive balance (Reach, TUG) Reactive balance Dynamic balance (beam test) Grip, leg strength Cognitive tests Global cognition Attention, executive f. Processing speed Memory |
| adults aged 40-49 | – | –healthy adults will perform the following tests: Functional tests Mini BESTest Mobility, SPPB Static balance Proactive balance (Reach, TUG) Reactive balance Dynamic balance (beam test) Grip, leg strength Cognitive tests Global cognition Attention, executive f. Processing speed Memory |
| adults aged 50-59 | – | Diagnostic Test: Beam test to predict fallshealthy adults will perform the following tests: Functional tests Mini BESTest Mobility, SPPB Static balance Proactive balance (Reach, TUG) Reactive balance Dynamic balance (beam test to predict falls) Grip, leg strength Cognitive tests Global cognition Attention, executive f. Processing speed Memory In the follow up study 6, 12 months after baseline, fear of falling and fall history will be assessed in 50+ |
| adults aged 60-69 | – | Diagnostic Test: Beam test to predict fallshealthy adults will perform the following tests: Functional tests Mini BESTest Mobility, SPPB Static balance Proactive balance (Reach, TUG) Reactive balance Dynamic balance (beam test to predict falls) Grip, leg strength Cognitive tests Global cognition Attention, executive f. Processing speed Memory In the follow up study 6, 12 months after baseline, fear of falling and fall history will be assessed in 50+ |
| adults aged 70-79 | – | Diagnostic Test: Beam test to predict fallshealthy adults will perform the following tests: Functional tests Mini BESTest Mobility, SPPB Static balance Proactive balance (Reach, TUG) Reactive balance Dynamic balance (beam test to predict falls) Grip, leg strength Cognitive tests Global cognition Attention, executive f. Processing speed Memory In the follow up study 6, 12 months after baseline, fear of falling and fall history will be assessed in 50+ |
| adults aged 80+ | – | Diagnostic Test: Beam test to predict fallshealthy adults will perform the following tests: Functional tests Mini BESTest Mobility, SPPB Static balance Proactive balance (Reach, TUG) Reactive balance Dynamic balance (beam test to predict falls) Grip, leg strength Cognitive tests Global cognition Attention, executive f. Processing speed Memory In the follow up study 6, 12 months after baseline, fear of falling and fall history will be assessed in 50+ |
| geriatric patients | – | Diagnostic Test: Beam test to predict fallshealthy adults will perform the following tests: Functional tests Mini BESTest Mobility, SPPB Static balance Proactive balance (Reach, TUG) Reactive balance Dynamic balance (beam test to predict falls) Grip, leg strength Cognitive tests Global cognition Attention, executive f. Processing speed Memory In the follow up study 6, 12 months after baseline, fear of falling and fall history will be assessed in 50+ |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 20 to 80 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- Healthy participants will be recruited from local areas at the four centers using word of mouth and advertisements in public areas, libraries, churches, newspapers, fitness clubs, health care facilities, and on radio, TV, and the Internet. Volunteer participants included will be male and female adults aged over 20, in good health, balance, and mobility.
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Volunteer participants included will be male and female adults aged over 20, in good health, balance, and mobility.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Positive answer to any of the following questions in a (phone) interview results in exclusion from the study: unable to walk 10-m independently; knee or hip joint replacements ≤6 months before enrollment; uncontrolled cardiovascular disease or angina; neuromuscular disease; diagnosed Parkinson's disease; multiple sclerosis; stroke; cancer therapy ≤ 3 months before enrollment; severe asthma or chronic bronchitis; diagnosed diabetes with neuropathy, poor and uncorrected vision, and a score ≤27 on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE).
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Beam test to predict fallsAlso: Beam walkingDynamic balance will be determined in all participants during beam walking. The beams are 4m long, 2cm high, and 4, 8, and 12cm wide. After a practice trial, participants will perform three trials on each width with and without a calculation task. Trials will be block-randomized based on beam width then on task. Instructions: 'Traverse the entire length of the beam safely at your preferred speed without stepping off, facing forward, with your arms folded in front of your chest. Trials end when you step off, walk sideways, or unfold the arms.' Outcomes are the sum of length traversed, average velocity, number of steps, and average step length determined from video recordings made at 90° relative to the walking direction with full beam length in view using off-the-shelf video cameras. | Diagnostic test | adults aged 50-59, adults aged 60-69, adults aged 70-79, adults aged 80+, geriatric patients |
Primary outcome
distance in balance beam walking under single and dual-task conditions
Time frame: 2 hours
Outcomes are the sum of length traversed (3-5 trials, 4m each, 12m maximum), average velocity, number of steps, and average step length determined from video tape recordings (60Hz) made at 90° relative to the walking direction with full beam length in view using off-the-shelf HD video cameras (Kinovea software).
17 secondary outcomes
Physical activity
Time frame: 10 minutes
Fall history
Time frame: 10 minutes
Falls efficacy scale-international
Time frame: 10 minutes
Balance confidence
Time frame: 15 minutes
Mini-BESTest
Time frame: 20 minutes
Mobility
Time frame: 20 minutes
Static steady-state balance
Time frame: 10 minutes
Proactive Balance
Time frame: 10 minutes
Reactive balance
Time frame: 10 minutes
Upper extremity strength
Time frame: 10 minutes
Lower extremity strength
Time frame: 10 minutes
Cognitive status
Time frame: 5 minutes
Global cognition
Time frame: 5 minutes
Executive function
Time frame: 5 minutes
Attention
Time frame: 5 minutes
Verbal memory span
Time frame: 10 minutes
Visual memory span
Time frame: 10 minutes
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 22 May 2018.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 38775922Hortobagyi T, Vetrovsky T, Uematsu A, Sanders L, da Silva Costa AA, Batistela RA, Moraes R, Granacher U, Szabo-Kora S, Csutoras B, Szephelyi K, Tollar J. Walking on a Balance Beam as a New Measure of Dynamic Balance to Predict Falls in Older Adults and Patients with Neurological Conditions. Sports Med Open. 2024 May 22;10(1):59. doi: 10.1186/s40798-024-00723-7.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 30336478Hortobagyi T, Uematsu A, Sanders L, Kliegl R, Tollar J, Moraes R, Granacher U. Beam Walking to Assess Dynamic Balance in Health and Disease: A Protocol for the "BEAM" Multicenter Observational Study. Gerontology. 2019;65(4):332-339. doi: 10.1159/000493360. Epub 2018 Oct 18.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Aging
RecruitingPhase 2
Neuroplasticity Enhancement From Cognitive Training Reinforced by Psilocybin
Alzheimer's Disease
Recruiting
Colon-delivered Riboflavin and Gut Microbiota Composition
Microbiome Dysbiosis, Gut Health
RecruitingPhase 2
Metformin as an add-on or Monotherapy in Treatment of Aging People With Multiple Sclerosis (MS)
Multiple Sclerosis
Not yet recruitingPhase 2
Validation & Intervention Testing for Aging, Longevity and Healthspan
Aging, Functional Decline
RecruitingObservational study
Effects of Obesity on Physical Abilities and Daily Living Activities in Elderly Adults
Obesity, Sarcopenic Obesity
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
5 sites in 5 countries: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Aging and Parkinson Disease, run by University Medical Center Groningen at 5 sites in 5 countries.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 22 May 2018. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 5 sites in Brazil, Germany, Hungary, Japan, Netherlands. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
distance in balance beam walking under single and dual-task conditions (time frame: 2 hours). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT03532984, which also lists 2 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 22 May 2018.