Table 2.

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

		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

BEAR Balance Exercise Assist Robot; CR conventional rehabilitation; IBT intensive balance training; Mini-BESTest Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test; SD standard deviation

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