ArticleExperimental brain research2017
Peg-manipulation capabilities during a test of manual dexterity differ for persons with multiple sclerosis and healthy individuals.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pulse Width Does Not Influence the Gains Achieved With Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation in People With Multiple Sclerosis: Double-Blind, Randomized Trial.Neurorehabilitation and neural repair · 2018Trial
- Article
- Analysis of the Influence of Depression on the Occupational Performance of People Diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis and Its Impact on Caregiver Burden.Depression and anxiety · 2024Observational
- Assessment of Upper Extremity Function in Multiple Sclerosis: Feasibility of a Digital Pinching Test.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Metabolic costs of walking and arm reaching in persons with mild multiple sclerosis.Journal of neurophysiology · 2023Article
- Effects of HIV infection, antiretroviral therapy, and immune status on the speed of information processing and complex motor functions in adult Cameroonians.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Poor estimates of motor variability are associated with longer grooved pegboard times for middle-aged and older adults.Journal of neurophysiology · 2019Article
- Peg-manipulation capabilities of middle-aged adults have a greater influence on pegboard times than those of young and old adults.Experimental brain research · 2018Article
- Examining the Interactions Between Expectations and tDCS Effects on Motor and Cognitive Performance.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Manual dexterity declines with advancing age and the development of neurological disorders. Changes in manual dexterity are frequently quantified as the time it takes to complete the grooved pegboard test, which requires individuals to manipulate 25 pegs. The manipulation of each peg involves four phases: selection, transport, insertion, and return. The purpose of the study was to compare the times to complete the four phases of manipulating each peg and the forces applied to the pegboard during peg selection and insertion in persons with multiple sclerosis (MS) and age- and sex-matched healthy adults. Multiple-regression models that could explain the variance in pegboard times for each group of participants were compared to assess the relative significance of the peg-manipulation attributes. The performance of 17 persons with MS (52.2 ± 8.3 years) was compared with 17 control subjects (52.2 ± 11.5 years). The grooved pegboard test was performed on a force plate. Pegboard times for the MS group (104 ± 40 s) were longer than those for the Control group (61 ± 15 s). Regression analysis indicated that the pegboard times for the MS group could be predicted by the time for the peg-selection phase (R
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.