Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35588125›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Sensitivity of discrete symmetry metrics: Implications for metric choice.

Allen Hill, Julie Nantel

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Allen HillSchool of Human Kinetics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0939-0765
Julie NantelSchool of Human Kinetics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7253-9222
University of Ottawa · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gait asymmetry is present in several pathological populations, including those with Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, and stroke survivors. Previous studies suggest that commonly used discrete symmetry metrics, which compare single bilateral variables, may not be equally sensitive to underlying effects of asymmetry, and the use of a metric with low sensitivity could result in unnecessarily low statistical power. The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive assessment of the sensitivity of commonly used discrete symmetry metrics to better inform design of future studies. Monte Carlo simulations were used to estimate the statistical power of each symmetry metric at a range of asymmetry magnitudes, group/condition variabilities, and sample sizes. Power was estimated by repeated comparison of simulated symmetric and asymmetric data with a paired t-test, where the proportion of significant results is equivalent to the power. Simulation results confirmed that not all common discrete symmetry metrics are equally sensitive to reference effects of asymmetry. Multiple symmetry metrics exhibit equivalent sensitivities, but the most sensitive discrete symmetry metric in all cases is a bilateral difference (e.g. left-right). A ratio (e.g. left/right) has poor sensitivity when group/condition variability is not small, but a log-transformation produces increased sensitivity. Additionally, two metrics which included an absolute value in their definitions showed increased sensitivity when the absolute value was removed. Future studies should consider metric sensitivity when designing analyses to reduce the possibility of underpowered research.

Indexed as

Parkinson DiseaseStrokeGaitHumansSample Size

Identifiers

PMID35588125
PMCPMC9119531
OpenAlexW4280593813

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.