ArticleJournal of neurology2018
Adult normative values for the PATA Rate Test.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of cerebellar transcranial magnetic stimulation in spinocerebellar ataxia type 3: a randomized, single-blinded, controlled trial.Journal of neurology · 2023Trial
- Speech and Nonspeech Parameters in the Clinical Assessment of Dysarthria: A Dimensional Analysis.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Rationale and protocol of a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to test the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of dimethyl fumarate in Friedreich Ataxia (DMF-FA-201).Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Application of the p9NORM correction method to timed neuropsychological tests in Parkinson's disease and multiple system atrophy.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2020Article
- Cerebellum and cognition in Friedreich ataxia: a voxel-based morphometry and volumetric MRI study.Journal of neurology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDuring neurological evaluation, dysarthria is not rated using quantitative measures, but rather using a qualitative approach.
objectiveAim of our study was to validate and acquire normative values for the PATA Rate Task (PRT), a quantitative test used to measure the severity of dysarthria.
methodsFor the PRT probands are invited to repeat the syllables "PA-TA" as quickly as possible during a 10-s interval. The score consists in the number of correct repetition of both syllables.
resultsWe enrolled 232 healthy controls (118 males, 114 females), mean and standard deviation of the PRT was 28.84 ± 6.6 (range 14-52). The PRT showed good inter-rater reliability (R = 0.783; p < 0.001), as well as test-retest reliability (R = 0.927; p < 0.001), and intra-rater reliability (R = 0.888; p < 0.001). Higher age correlated with lower scores (R = - 0.368; p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe PRT showed good reliability and could be easily added to the evaluation of movement disorders where a speech evaluation is essential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29511862What 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.