ArticleClinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology2021
The reliability of cerebellar brain inhibition.
Article in Clinical neurophysiology : official journal of the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bibliometric and visualised analysis on non-invasive cerebellar stimulation from 1995 to 2021.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Pooled it
- Cerebellar transcranial static magnetic field stimulation reduces muscle activity during maximum contraction.BMC research notes · 2026Trial
- Enhancing Balance Control in Aging Through Cerebellar Theta-Burst Stimulation.Cerebellum (London, England) · 2025Trial
- Neurophysiology of cerebellar ataxias and gait disorders.Clinical neurophysiology practice · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveConnectivity between the cerebellum and primary motor cortex (M1) can be assessed by using transcranial magnetic stimulation to measure cerebellar brain inhibition (CBI). The aim of the present study was to determine the intra- and inter-day measurment error and relative reliability of CBI. The former informs the degree to which repeated measurements vary, whereas the latter informs how well the measure can distinguish individuals from one another within a sample.
methodsWe obtained CBI data from 83 healthy young participants (n = 55 retrospective). Intra-day measurements were separated by ~ 30 min. Inter-day measurmenets were separated by a minimum of 24 h.
resultsWe show that CBI has low measurement error (~15%) within and between sessions. Using the measurment error, we demonstrate that change estimates which exceed measurment noise are large at an individual level, but can be detected with modest sample sizes. Finally, we demonstrate that the CBI measurement has fair to good relative reliability in healthy individuals, which may be deflated by low sample heterogeneity.
conclusionsCBI has low measurement error supporting its use for tracking intra- and inter-day changes in cerebellar-M1 connectivity. SIGNIFICANCE: Our findings provide clear reliability guidelines for future studies assessing modulation of cerebellar-M1 connectivity with intervention or disease progression.
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.