ArticleYeungnam University journal of medicine2018
Reliability and validity of free software for the analysis of locomotor activity in mice.
Article in Yeungnam University journal of medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Kinovea software that tracking semi-automatically the motion in video screen has been used to study motion-related tasks in several studies. However, the validation of this software in open field test to assess locomotor activity have not been studied yet. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the reliability and validity of this software in analyzing locomotor activities. Methods: Thirty male Institute Cancer Research mice were subjected in this study. The results examined by this software and the classical method were compared. Test-retest reliability and inter-rater reliability were analyzed with Pearson's correlation coefficient and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The validity of this software was analyzed with Pearson's correlation coefficient. Results: This software showed good test-retest reliability (ICC=0.997, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.975-0.994, Conclusion: This study showed that this software in analyzing drug-induced locomotor activity has good reliability and validity. This software can be effectively used in animal study using the analysis of locomotor activity.
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.