ArticleBMJ open2022
Reporting of exercise dose and dosage and outcome measures for gaze stabilisation in the literature: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- The role of the physiotherapist in concussion.The South African journal of physiotherapy · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe concept of this review is to examine and quantify the reporting of parameters of dose (duration, speed, head excursion) and dosage (daily and weekly frequency, duration) for gaze stabilisation exercises and to report on outcome measures used to assess change in gaze stabilisation following intervention. This review includes any population completing gaze stabilisation exercises.
designScoping review.
methodsWe searched key terms in the following databases: PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus and Cochrane. Two researchers reviewed titles, abstracts and full-text articles for inclusion. Data retrieved included: patient diagnosis, specific interventions provided, dose and dosage of gaze stabilisation interventions and outcome measures.
resultsFrom the initial 1609 results, 138 studies were included. Data extraction revealed that only 13 studies (9.4%) reported all parameters of dose and dosage. Most studies used other interventions in addition to gaze stabilisation exercises. Half of the studies did not use a clinical or instrumented outcome measure of gaze stability, using only patient-reported outcome measures. Clinical tests of gaze stability were used in 21.1% of studies, and instrumented measures of gaze stability were used in 14.7% of studies.
conclusionsFull reporting of the dose and dosage of gaze stabilisation interventions is infrequent, impairing the ability to translate current evidence into clinical care. Most studies did not use a clinical or instrumented measure of gaze stabilisation as outcome measures, questioning the validity of intervention effects. Improved reporting and use of outcome measures are necessary to establish optimal intervention parameters for those with gaze stability impairments.
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.