Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32615990›Full record

ArticleJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2020

Assessment of dynamic balancing responses following perturbations during slow walking in relation to clinical outcome measures for high-functioning post-stroke subjects.

Matjaž Zadravec, Andrej Olenšek, Marko Rudolf, Nataša Bizovičar, Nika Goljar, Zlatko Matjačić

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Matjaž ZadravecUniversity rehabilitation institute Republic of Slovenia, Linhartova 51, SI-1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Andrej OlenšekUniversity rehabilitation institute Republic of Slovenia, Linhartova 51, SI-1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Marko RudolfUniversity rehabilitation institute Republic of Slovenia, Linhartova 51, SI-1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Nataša BizovičarUniversity rehabilitation institute Republic of Slovenia, Linhartova 51, SI-1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Nika GoljarUniversity rehabilitation institute Republic of Slovenia, Linhartova 51, SI-1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia.
Zlatko MatjačićUniversity rehabilitation institute Republic of Slovenia, Linhartova 51, SI-1000, Ljubljana, Slovenia. zlatko.matjacic@ir-rs.si.ORCID 0000-0001-9627-218X
Univerzitetni Rehabilitacijski Inštitut · SI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenerating appropriate balancing reactions in response to unexpected loss of balance during walking is important to prevent falls. The purpose of this study was to assess dynamic balancing responses following pushes to the pelvis in groups of post-stroke and healthy subjects.

methodsForty-one post-stroke subjects and forty-three healthy subjects participated in the study. Dynamic balancing responses to perturbations triggered at heel strike of the left or right leg, directed in the forward, backward, inward and outward directions during slow treadmill walking were assessed. Responses of the healthy group provided reference values used to classify responses of the post-stroke group into two subgroups; one within the reference responses ("inside" subgroup) and the other that falls out ("outside" subgroup). A battery of selected clinical outcome measures (6-Minute Walk Test, 10-Meter Walk Test, Timed-Up-and-Go test, Four Square Step Test, Functional Gait Assessment, Functional Independence Measure and One-legged stance test) was additionally assessed in the post-stroke group.

resultsThe "inside" subgroup of post-stroke subjects was able to appropriately modulate centre-of-pressure and ground-reaction-force both under the impaired and non-impaired leg in response to perturbations. The "outside" subgroup of post-stroke subjects showed limited modulation of centre-of-pressure and ground-reaction-force under the impaired leg; instead stepping strategy was used in which the non-impaired leg was placed such as to make a longer step (forward perturbation), to make a shorter step (backward perturbation) or to make a cross-step (outward perturbation). Consequently, peak centre-of-mass displacements following perturbations were significantly higher in the "outside" subgroup compared to the "inside" subgroup. Responses in both subgroups following inward perturbations did not differ. Majority of clinical outcome measures moderately correlated with the peak centre-of-mass displacements for forward perturbations and exhibited weak correlations for other perturbation directions.

conclusionsSubstantial number of post-stroke subjects, that were considered to be independent walkers, have reduced capabilities to execute appropriate balancing responses following perturbations commencing on the hemiparetic leg and may thus benefit from perturbation-based training. Timed-Up-and-Go and Functional Independence Measure tests may provide an indication on the abilities of each subject to counteract unexpected loss of balance. However, a reliable assessment should be done through perturbation-based measures.

Indexed as

AdultAgedFemaleGaitHumansMaleMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CarePostural BalanceStrokeTime and Motion StudiesWalkingBalance assessmentCentre-of-massCentre-of-pressureGround-reaction-forcePerturbed walking

Identifiers

PMID32615990
PMCPMC7330998
OpenAlexW3040303295

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.