Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30705765›Full record

ArticleAging and disease2019

Quantitative Evaluation of Gait Disturbance on an Instrumented Timed Up-and-go Test.

Shigeki Yamada, Yukihiko Aoyagi, Kazuo Yamamoto, Masatsune Ishikawa

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Aging and disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Shigeki Yamada1Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus Center, Rakuwakai Otowa Hospital, Rakuwakai Healthcare System, Kyoto, Japan.
Yukihiko Aoyagi3Digital Standard Co., Ltd., Osaka, Japan.
Kazuo Yamamoto2Department of Neurosurgery and Stroke Center, Rakuwakai Otowa Hospital, Rakuwakai Healthcare System, Kyoto, Japan.
Masatsune Ishikawa1Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus Center, Rakuwakai Otowa Hospital, Rakuwakai Healthcare System, Kyoto, Japan.
Western Digital (Japan) · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although the 3-m timed up-and-go test (TUG) is reliable for evaluating mobility, TUG time is insufficient to evaluate mild gait disturbance; we, therefore aimed to investigate other measurements with instrumented TUG (iTUG) using a free smartphone application. Our inclusion criterion in this study is only that participants can walk without any assistance. This study included three heterogeneous groups; patients who underwent a tap test or shunt surgery, 29 inpatients hospitalized for other reasons, and 87 day-care users. After the tap test, 28 were diagnosed with tap-positive idiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) and 8 were diagnosed with tap-negative. Additionally, 18 patients were assessed iTUG before and after shunt surgery. During iTUG, time and 3-dimensional (3D) acceleration were automatically recorded every 0.01 s. A volume of the 95% confidence ellipsoid (95%CE) of all plots for 3D acceleration was calculated. Additionally, an iTUG score was defined as (95%CE volume)

Indexed as

cerebrospinal fluid tap testdiagnostic test assessmentgait assessmentgait disturbanceidiopathic normal-pressure hydrocephalustimed up-and-go test

Identifiers

PMID30705765
PMCPMC6345343
OpenAlexW2890916310

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.