ArticleAnnals of rehabilitation medicine2013
The effects of visual and haptic vertical stimulation on standing balance in stroke patients.
Article in Annals of rehabilitation medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of dual-task training on postural stability in children with infantile hemiparesis.Journal of physical therapy science · 2016Article
- The effect of dual-task training on balance and cognition in patients with subacute post-stroke.Annals of rehabilitation medicine · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the effect of visual and haptic vertical stimulation on standing balance in post-stroke patients.
methodsTwenty-five post-stroke patients were recruited. We measured left/right standing pressure differences and the center of pressure (COP) parameters for each patient under three different conditions: no stimulation, visual, and haptic stimulated conditions. First, patients stood on a posturography platform with their eyes blindfolded. After a rest period, the patients stood on the same platform with their eyes fixed to a 1.5-m luminous rod, which was placed at a vertical position in front of the patients. After another rest period, the patients again stood touching a vertically placed long rod in their non-hemiplegic hand with their eyes blindfolded. We collected the signals from the feet in each condition and obtained the balance indices.
resultsCompared with the no stimulation condition, significant improvements were observed for most of the COP parameters including COP area, length, and velocity for both the visual and haptic vertical stimulation conditions (p<0.01). Additionally, when we compared visual and haptic vertical stimulation, visual vertical stimulation was superior to haptic stimulation for all COP parameters (p<0.01). Left/right standing pressure differences, increased, although patients bore more weight on their paretic side when vertical stimulation was applied (p>0.01).
conclusionBoth visual and haptic vertical stimulation improved standing steadiness of post-stroke patients. Notably, visual vertical stimulation was more effective than haptic stimulation.
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.