ArticleActa clinica Croatica2022
EVAULATION OF BLINK REFLEX BETWEEN PATIENTS WITH IDIOPATHIC TRIGEMINAL NEURALGIA AND HEALTHY VOLUNTEERS.
Article in Acta clinica Croatica, 2022. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to find differences in the parameters of the response to the blink reflex (BR) between patients with idiopathic trigeminal neuralgia (TN) and health volunteers. A prospective cohort study was conducted over 2 years. The TN-subgroup included 15 patients (mean age / SD 62.3 ± 10.7 years). Pain-free and healthy volunteers as a HV-subgroup (mean age / SD: 30.8 ± 8.1 years) were recruited from asymptomatic students of dental medicine. Diagnostic parameters were determined by measuring latency to the onset of the BR components from electric stimulation. The following branches of the trigeminal nerve were affected: maxillary branch only (26.7%), mandibular branch only (20%), combined: ophthalmic branch with maxillary branch (6.7%), and ophthalmic branch with mandibular branch (6.7%) respectively, combined maxillary and mandibular branch (26.7%) and affected all three branches (13.4%). The latencies of the BR, left and right side together, between subgroups were significantly higher for values R1 (homolateral early response), R2 (homolateral late response), R2c latency (contralaterally expressed response) in the TN-subgroup (p < 0.05). On the basis of the presence of R1c and R3 latencies and upon considering the abnormal findings of the BR, no statistically significant differences were found between the examined subgroups (p > 0.05). Blink-reflex parameters (R1, R2 and R2c) were significantly abnormal comparing TN-patients with healthy volunteers. The R3 component of the BR was related to noxious stimuli, likewise by innocuous stimuli.
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.