SynthesisNeurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia)2020
A systematic review of adults` sitting balance assessments in neurological and neuromuscular condition.
Synthesis in Neurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia), 2020. 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.
- A systematic review of adults' sitting balance assessments in neurological and neuromuscular conditions.Neurosciences (Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo find out new assessment tools for sitting, in patients with neurological and neuromuscular conditions, to be recommended for rehabilitation practice locally in Saudi Arabia and internationally.
methodsFour databases were used: PubMed, Web of Science, Ovid Medline, and Cochrane. Inclusion criteria were articles published between the years 2009-2019; sitting, not standing or walking; assessment not intervention; published in English and studies on adults only. Exclusion criteria were any assessment that measures the standing/walking ability or has items for that, and studies that include pediatric or adolescent or both.
resultsTen articles met our criteria including 464 patients and divided into 3 main neurological conditions (stroke, SCI, and MS). One assessment (Function in Sitting Test) showed promising potential being implemented with both stroke and multiple sclerosis, Cronbach`s alpha, alpha were 0.91 and 0.98 indicating high internal consistency. It was used with SCI patients, however, no access was available to include this study in this review.
conclusionThis review indicates an extension of what was carried out by previous systematic reviews with neurological conditions. It seems that Function in Sitting Test is the most frequent assessment in this review with multiple neurological conditions (stroke, MS and SCI) with high internal consistency and high quality studies according to available data. However, this review showed that there is an absence of evidence for individuals with brain injury and muscular dystrophy. Further work needs to be carried out to address such groups of patients to extend the choices that clinicians can use in rehabilitation sittings.
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.