ArticleClinical neurophysiology practice2023
Investigating the intra-session reliability of short and long latency afferent inhibition.
Article in Clinical neurophysiology practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To establish the intrasession relative and absolute reliability of Short (SAI) and Long-Latency Afferent Inhibition (LAI). These findings will allow us to guide future explorations of changes to these measures. Methods: 31 healthy individuals (21.06 ± 2.85 years) had SAI and LAI obtained thrice at 30-minute intervals in one session. To identify the minimum number of trials required to reliably elicit SAI and LAI, relative reliability was assessed at running intervals of 5 trials. Results: SAI had moderate-high, and LAI had high-excellent relative reliability. Both SAI and LAI had high amounts of measurement error. LAI had high relative reliability when only 5 frames of data were included, whereas SAI required ∼20-30 frames of data for the same. For both SAI and LAI, individual smallest detectable change was large but was reduced at the group level. Conclusions: SAI and LAI can be used for both diagnostic purposes and to assess group level change but have limited utility in assessing within-individual changes. Significance: These results can be used to inform future work regarding the utility of SAI and LAI, particularly in terms of their ability to identify particularly high or low values of afferent inhibition.
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.