Trial reportPhysical therapy2013
Combined statistical analysis method assessing fast versus slow movement training in a patient with cerebellar stroke: a single-case study.
Trial report in Physical therapy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stepping Up to Rethink the Future of Rehabilitation: IV STEP Considerations and Inspirations.Journal of neurologic physical therapy : JNPT · 2017Article
- Stepping Up to Rethink the Future of Rehabilitation: IV STEP Considerations and Inspirations.Pediatric physical therapy : the official publication of the Section on Pediatrics of the American Physical Therapy Association · 2017Article
- Focal hand dystonia: individualized intervention with repeated application of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation.Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2015Article
- Mixed effectiveness of rTMS and retraining in the treatment of focal hand dystonia.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGold standards of data analysis for single-case research do not currently exist.
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to determine whether a combined statistical analysis method is more effective in assessing movement training effects in a patient with cerebellar stroke.
designA crossover single-case research design was conducted.
methodsThe patient was a 69-year-old man with a chronic cerebellar infarct who received two 5-week phases of finger tracking training at different movement rates. Changes were measured with the Box and Block Test, the Jebsen-Taylor test, the finger extension force test, and the corticospinal excitability test. Both visual analysis and statistical tests (including split-middle line method, t test, confidence interval, and effect size) were used to assess potential intervention effects.
resultsThe results of the t tests were highly consistent with the confidence interval tests, but less consistent with the split-middle line method. Most results produced medium to large effect sizes. LIMITATIONS: The possibility of an incomplete washout effect was a confounding factor in the current analyses.
conclusionsThe combined statistical analysis method may assist researchers in assessing intervention effects in single-case stroke rehabilitation studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.