ArticleJournal of neurology2020
Advantages of timing the duration of a freezing of gait-provoking test in individuals with Parkinson's disease.
Article in Journal of neurology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Ziegler Test Is Reliable and Valid for Measuring Freezing of Gait in People With Parkinson Disease.Physical therapy · 2022Article
- Daily-Living Freezing of Gait as Quantified Using Wearables in People With Parkinson Disease: Comparison With Self-Report and Provocation Tests.Physical therapy · 2022Article
- A Video Self-Modeling Intervention Using Virtual Reality Plus Physical Practice for Freezing of Gait in Parkinson Disease: Feasibility and Acceptability Study.JMIR formative research · 2021Article
- Using Wearable Sensors and Machine Learning to Automatically Detect Freezing of Gait during a FOG-Provoking Test.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evaluating freezing of gait (FOG) and quantifying its severity in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) is challenging; objective assessment is not sufficiently established. We aimed to improve the ability to objectively evaluate FOG severity by investigating the value of measuring the duration of the test and its components. Seventy-one patients with PD and FOG completed a previously validated FOG-provoking test. The test was performed under three conditions: (1) usual, single task; (2) dual task (walking while carrying a tray); and (3) triple task (walking while holding a tray and subtracting 7 s). FOG and festination were scored using standard procedures. We evaluated effect sizes based on both the original scoring and the test duration for the motor-cognitive cost and before and after anti-Parkinsonian medication intake. Additionally, video recording of the test and total time frozen were measured. As expected, the original test score and the test duration increased across the three conditions of the task and were higher in OFF than in the ON-medication state (p < 0.036). For motor-cognitive cost, higher effect sizes were observed for the test duration of each condition, compared to the original scoring in OFF state (0.85 vs. 0.68, respectively). Change in effect size category was more pronounced in the ON state vs. OFF (0.87 vs. 0.55, respectively). Test duration was the only independent predictor for the self-report of FOG severity and the total time frozen during the test. These findings suggest that quantifying the duration of each condition of the FOG-provoking test improves its sensitivity to medications and task complexity. Timing can be used to provide immediate, objective feedback of freezing severity, and a clear interpretation of a patient's performance.
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.