ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2018
Neurophysiological analysis of the clinical pull test.
Article in Journal of neurophysiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Low-frequency STN-DBS provides acute gait improvements in Parkinson's disease: a double-blinded randomised cross-over feasibility trial.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2021Trial
- Presence and origin of variability of the pull test and push-and-release test in people with Parkinson's disease.Journal of neurology · 2025Article
- Precision Balance Assessment in Parkinson's Disease: Utilizing Vision-Based 3D Pose Tracking for Pull Test Analysis.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Extraction of the pull force from inertial sensors during the pull test for Parkinson's disease: A reliability study.Journal of movement disorders · 2024Article
- Objective quantification of responses to the clinical pull-test in people with Parkinson's disease.Gait & posture · 2023Article
- Postural instability in Parkinson's disease assessed with clinical "pull test" and standardized postural perturbations: effect of medication and body weight support.Journal of neurology · 2023Article
- Response to perturbation during quiet standing resembles delayed state feedback optimized for performance and robustness.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- The Choice of Leg During Pull Test in Parkinson's Disease: Not Mere Chance.Frontiers in 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Postural reflexes are impaired in conditions such as Parkinson's disease, leading to difficulty walking and falls. In clinical practice, postural responses are assessed using the "pull test," where an examiner tugs the prewarned standing patient backward at the shoulders and grades the response. However, validity of the pull test is debated, with issues including scaling and variability in administration and interpretation. It is unclear whether to assess the first trial or only subsequent repeated trials. The ecological relevance of a forewarned backward challenge is also debated. We therefore developed an instrumented version of the pull test to characterize responses and clarify how the test should be performed and interpreted. In 33 healthy participants, "pulls" were manually administered and pull force measured. Trunk and step responses were assessed with motion tracking. We probed for the StartReact phenomenon (where preprepared responses are released early by a startling stimulus) by delivering concurrent normal or "startling" auditory stimuli. We found that the first pull triggers a different response, including a larger step size suggesting more destabilization. This is consistent with "first trial effects," reported by platform translation studies, where movement execution appears confounded by startle reflex-like activity. Thus, first pull test trials have clinical relevance and should not be discarded as practice. Supportive of ecological relevance, responses to repeated pulls exhibited StartReact, as previously reported with a variety of other postural challenges, including those delivered with unexpected timing and direction. Examiner pull force significantly affected the postural response, particularly the size of stepping. NEW & NOTEWORTHY We characterized postural responses elicited by the clinical "pull test" using instrumentation. The first pull triggers a different response, including a larger step size suggesting more destabilization. Thus, first trials likely have important clinical and ecological relevance and should not be discarded as practice. Responses to repeated pulls can be accelerated with a startling stimulus, as reported with a variety of other challenges. Examiner pull force was a significant factor influencing the postural response.
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.