Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29339922›Full record

ReviewNeuropsychiatric disease and treatment2018

Effect of rhythmic auditory cueing on gait in cerebral palsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Shashank Ghai, Ishan Ghai, Alfred O Effenberg

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Spontaneous Interpersonal Synchronization of Gait: A Systematic Review.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Shashank GhaiInstitute for Sports Science, Leibniz University Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Ishan GhaiSchool of Life Sciences, Jacobs University, Bremen, Germany.
Alfred O EffenbergInstitute for Sports Science, Leibniz University Hannover, Hannover, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Auditory entrainment can influence gait performance in movement disorders. The entrainment can incite neurophysiological and musculoskeletal changes to enhance motor execution. However, a consensus as to its effects based on gait in people with cerebral palsy is still warranted. A systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out to analyze the effects of rhythmic auditory cueing on spatiotemporal and kinematic parameters of gait in people with cerebral palsy. Systematic identification of published literature was performed adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and American Academy for Cerebral Palsy and Developmental Medicine guidelines, from inception until July 2017, on online databases: Web of Science, PEDro, EBSCO, Medline, Cochrane, Embase and ProQuest. Kinematic and spatiotemporal gait parameters were evaluated in a meta-analysis across studies. Of 547 records, nine studies involving 227 participants (108 children/119 adults) met our inclusion criteria. The qualitative review suggested beneficial effects of rhythmic auditory cueing on gait performance among all included studies. The meta-analysis revealed beneficial effects of rhythmic auditory cueing on gait dynamic index (Hedge's

Indexed as

ataxiabalanceentrainmenthemiplegiarehabilitationspastic diplegia

Identifiers

PMID29339922
PMCPMC5746070

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.