Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30110235›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurophysiology2018

Neurophysiological analysis of the clinical pull test.

Joy Lynn Tan, Thushara Perera, Jennifer L McGinley, Shivanthan Arthur Curtis Yohanandan, Peter Brown, Wesley Thevathasan

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Joy Lynn TanDepartment of Medical Bionics, The University of Melbourne , Parkville, Victoria , Australia.
Thushara PereraDepartment of Medical Bionics, The University of Melbourne , Parkville, Victoria , Australia.
Jennifer L McGinleyThe Bionics Institute, East Melbourne, Victoria , Australia.
Shivanthan Arthur Curtis YohanandanThe Bionics Institute, East Melbourne, Victoria , Australia.
Peter BrownMedical Research Council Brain Network Dynamics Unit and Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford , Oxford , United Kingdom.
Wesley ThevathasanDepartment of Neurology, The Royal Melbourne Hospital , Parkville, Victoria , Australia.
University of Melbourne · AUBionics Institute · AUUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_12024/1
6 · The paper itself

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

PostureReflex, StartleAdultDiagnostic EquipmentFemaleGaitHumansMalebalancepostural reflexpull testStartReact

Identifiers

PMID30110235
PMCPMC6314461
OpenAlexW2885818211

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.