Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30265701›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2018

Normative data for human postural vertical: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Laila B Conceição, Jussara A O Baggio, Suleimy C Mazin, Dylan J Edwards, Taiza E G Santos

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Laila B ConceiçãoMae de Deus Hospital, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Jussara A O BaggioDepartment of Neuroscience and Behavioral Sciences, Ribeirao Preto Medical School, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, São Paulo, Brazil.
Suleimy C MazinDepartment of Neuroscience and Behavioral Sciences, Ribeirao Preto Medical School, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, São Paulo, Brazil.
Dylan J EdwardsMoss Rehabilitation Research Institute, Elkins Park, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Taiza E G SantosDepartment of Neuroscience and Behavioral Sciences, Ribeirao Preto Medical School, University of Sao Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-3033-2981
Universidade de São Paulo · BREdith Cowan University · AUHospital Mãe de Deus · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Perception of verticality is required for normal daily function, yet the typical human detection error range has not been well characterized. Vertical misperception has been correlated with poor postural control and functionality in patients after stroke and after vestibular disorders. Until now, all the published studies that assessed Subjective Postural Vertical (SPV) in the seated position used small groups to establish a reference value. However, this sample size does not represent the healthy population for comparison with conditions resulting in pathological vertical. Therefore, the primary objective was to conduct a systematic review with meta-analyses of Subjective Postural Vertical (SPV) data in seated position in healthy adults to establish the reference value with a representative sample. The secondary objective was to investigate the methodological characteristics of different assessment protocols of SPV described in the literature. A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane libraries. Mean and standard deviation of SPV in frontal and sagittal planes were considered as effect size measures. Sixteen of 129 identified studies met eligibility criteria for our systematic review (n = 337 subjects in the frontal plane; n = 187 subjects in sagittal plane). The meta-analyses measure was estimated using the pooled mean as the estimator and its respective error. Mean reference values were 0.12°±1.49° for the frontal plane and 0.02°±1.82° for the sagittal plane. There was a small variability of the results and this systematic review resulted in representative values for SPV. The critical analysis of the studies and observed homogeneity in the sample suggests that the methodological differences used in the studies did not influence SPV assessment of directional bias in healthy subjects. These data can serve as a reference for clinical studies in disorders of verticality.

Indexed as

Databases as TopicHumansPostureReference ValuesStatistics as Topic

Identifiers

PMID30265701
PMCPMC6161851
OpenAlexW2892915583

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.