ArticleGait & posture2021
Comparison of forward and backward postural perturbations in mild-to-moderate Parkinson's disease.
Article in Gait & posture, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dopamine replacement therapy normalizes reactive step length to postural perturbations in Parkinson's disease.Gait & posture · 2023Article
- Postural instability in Parkinson's disease assessed with clinical "pull test" and standardized postural perturbations: effect of medication and body weight support.Journal of neurology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAssessing postural stability in Parkinson's disease (PD) often relies on measuring the stepping response to an imposed postural perturbation. The standard clinical technique relies on a brisk backwards pull at the shoulders by the examiner and judgement by a trained rater. In research settings, various quantitative measures and perturbation directions have been tested, but it is unclear which metrics and perturbation direction differ most between people with PD and controls.
objectives(1) Use standardized forward vs. backward perturbations of a support surface to evaluate reactive stepping performance between PD and control participants. (2) Evaluate the utility of using principal components analysis to capture the dynamics of the reactive response and differences between groups.
methodsSixty-two individuals participated (40 mild-to-moderate PD, off medication). Standardized rapid translations of the support surface were applied, requiring at least one step, backward or forward, to restore balance. The number of steps taken and the projection of the first principal component (PC1) of the center of pressure (COP) time series were entered in linear repeated-measures mixed effect models.
resultsForward falls required significantly fewer steps to recover than backward falls. PC1 captured more than half of the variance in the COP trajectory. Analysis of the PC1 projection revealed a significant interaction effect of group (PD vs. controls) by direction, such that there was a group difference in forward stepping, but not backward. SIGNIFICANCE: Forward reactive stepping in PD differed from controls more than backward-stepping. PC1 projections of the COP trajectory capture the dynamics of the postural response and differ between PD and controls.
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.