Trial reportPediatric neurology2017
Defining Hand Stereotypies in Rett Syndrome: A Movement Disorders Perspective.
Trial report in Pediatric neurology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Movement disorders in patients with Rett syndrome: A systematic review of evidence and associated clinical considerations.Psychiatry and clinical neurosciences · 2021Pooled it
- Trial
- Globally Reduced Brain Volume in Rett Syndrome.Pediatric neurology · 2025Article
- Repeated Motor Training on Attention Reaching Skills and Stereotypies in Rett Syndrome.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionHand stereotypies (HS) are a primary diagnostic criterion for Rett syndrome (RTT) but are difficult to characterize and quantify systematically.
methodsWe collected video on 27 girls (2-12 years of age) with classic RTT who participated in a mecasermin trial. The present study focused exclusively on video analyses, by reviewing two five-minute windows per subject to identify the two most common HS. Three raters with expertise in movement disorders independently rated the five-minute windows using standardized terminology to determine the level of agreement. We iteratively refined the protocol in three stages to improve descriptive accuracy, categorizing HS as "central" or "peripheral," "simple" or "complex," scoring each hand separately. Inter-rater agreement was analyzed using Kappa statistics.
resultsIn the initial protocol evaluating HS by video, inter-rater agreement was 20.7%. In the final protocol, inter-rater agreement for the two most frequent HS was higher than the initial protocol at 50%.
conclusionPhenotypic variability makes standardized evaluation of HS in RTT a challenge; we achieved only 50% level of agreement and only for the most frequent HS. Therefore, objective measures are needed to evaluate HS.
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.