Trial reportHNO2016
[The vestibular craniovertebral joints].
Trial report in HNO, 2016. 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.
- Review
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe significance of cervical proprioception for human balance has thus far not been sufficiently elucidated. The aim of this study was to provoke selective cervico-vestibular stimulation using the trunk excursion test (TET) we ourselves constructed. This chair is designed to enable evaluation of cervico-ocular reactions during isolated trunk excursion and possible effects of aging.
methodsThe previously used head excursion test (HET) was statistically compared to the TET. In both methods, 100 healthy subjects of two age groups (group(26): median age = 26 years, n = 50; group(50): median age = 50 years, n = 50) were randomized for comparison of similar neck-to-trunk-positions.
resultsHET enabled detection of significant nystagmus modulation in horizontal and vertical dimensions; whereas in pure cervical stimulation using the new TET, this was only evident in the horizontal dimension and only during trunk torsion. Comparison of the two methods confirmed significantly stronger nystagmus modulation through head excursion. In terms of the HET, group(50) showed significantly more vertical nystagmus activity than group(26). However, no significant difference was found between the groups in terms of their reactions to trunk excursion in the TET. In a group-specific comparison of the methods, group(26) showed a significant increase in horizontal nystagmus in head compared to trunk excursion, whereas group(50) generally displayed a significantly greater response to provocation by head excursion in HET. Analysis of the significant vertical nystagmus modulation produced with the TET method showed predominance of upbeat- (UBN) over downbeat-nystagmus (DBN). Through head excursion with the HET, DBN was more frequently evoked in group(50) than in group(26). No significant age-dependent difference could be derived in UBN.
conclusionThe results of the pilot study indicate that head-to-trunk provocation is a suitable means of evaluating cervicotonic provocation nystagmus. Only by evaluation of adequate excursion limits and consistent analysis of patients with cervical deficiency can the effects of the method be further assessed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27126292What 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.