SynthesisPloS one2018
Normative data for human postural vertical: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- RIMeta: An R shiny tool for estimating the reference interval from a meta-analysis.Research synthesis methods · 2023Pooled it
- A Guide to Estimating the Reference Range From a Meta-Analysis Using Aggregate or Individual Participant Data.American journal of epidemiology · 2022Pooled it
- Estimating the reference interval from a fixed effects meta-analysis.Research synthesis methods · 2021Pooled it
- Galvanic vestibular stimulation alters the sense of upright.Experimental brain research · 2025Article
- The Role and Limitations of the Reference Interval Within Clinical Chemistry and Its Reliability for Disease Detection.British journal of biomedical science · 2024Review
- An improved Bayesian approach to estimating the reference interval from a meta-analysis: Directly monitoring the marginal quantiles and characterizing their uncertainty.Research synthesis methods · 2023Article
- Perception of verticality in the post-COVID-19 condition correlates to infection severity.Journal of central nervous system disease · 2023Article
- Real-Time Back Surface Landmark Determination Using a Time-of-Flight Camera.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Estimating the reference range from a meta-analysis.Research synthesis methods · 2021Article
- Prolonged Static Whole-Body Roll-Tilt and Optokinetic Stimulation Significantly Bias the Subjective Postural Vertical in Healthy Human Subjects.Frontiers in neurology · 2020Article
- Fractional Anisotropy of Thalamic Nuclei Is Associated With Verticality Misperception After Extra-Thalamic Stroke.Frontiers in neurology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.