ArticlePloS one2022
Validation of a graphic test to quantitatively assess the dominant hand dexterity.
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.
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.
- Time-Dependent Enhancement of Motor Dexterity and Cerebellar Function via Premotor-Cerebellar Associative Stimulation.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dexterity dysfunction is a key feature of disability in many neurological and non-neurological diseases. The Nine-Hole Peg Test (NHPT) is the most used test to assess hand dexterity in clinical practice but presents limitations. A new graphic test to enhance objective evaluation of the of the dominant hand dexterity is proposed. The task consists in drawing a continuous line in paths composed by a part with multiple orthogonal changes of direction ('meander'), and a second part derived from the Archimedean spiral ('spiral'). The test was validated in 200 healthy controls and 93 neurological patients. 48 patients performed also the NHPT. Several parameters were analyzed, among which total time, total length, number of touches and number of crossings. Healthy subjects display statistically significant differences with respect to pathological subjects in the case of total time, number of touches, and number of crossings (p<0.001), but not in the case of total length (p = 0.27) needed to complete the second sheet. Moreover, healthy controls display a learning effect, the time needed to complete the second sheet was significantly lower than for the first sheet (p<0.001), and an inverse correlation with age was observed (r = 0.56, p<0.001). The comparison between the NHPT and the new test showed a strong positive correlation (r = 0.71, p<0.001) whereas touches and crossing a weak positive one (r = 0.35, p = 0.01). The new test distinguishes between a slow but precise performance and a fast but imprecise performance, thus providing additional information with respect to NHPT.
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.