Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37205050›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in neuroscience2023

Scoping out noisy galvanic vestibular stimulation: a review of the parameters used to improve postural control.

Ruth McLaren, Paul F Smith, Rachael L Taylor, Imran Khan Niazi, Denise Taylor

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ruth McLarenRehabilitation Innovation Centre, Health and Rehabilitation Research Institute, School of Clinical Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
Paul F SmithEisdell Moore Centre for Hearing and Balance Research, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Rachael L TaylorEisdell Moore Centre for Hearing and Balance Research, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Imran Khan NiaziRehabilitation Innovation Centre, Health and Rehabilitation Research Institute, School of Clinical Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
Denise TaylorRehabilitation Innovation Centre, Health and Rehabilitation Research Institute, School of Clinical Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
University of Auckland · NZAuckland University of Technology · NZNew Zealand College of Chiropractic · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Noisy galvanic vestibular stimulation (nGVS) has been used to facilitate vestibular function and improve gait and balance in people with poor postural control. The aim of this scoping review is to collate, summarize and report on the nGVS parameters that have been used to augment postural control. Method: A systematic scoping review was conducted up to December 2022. Data were extracted and synthesized from 31 eligible studies. Key nGVS parameters were identified, and the importance of these parameters and their influence on postural control evaluated. Results: A range of nGVS parameters have been used to augment postural control, including; noise waveform, amplitude, frequency band, duration of stimulation, method of amplitude optimization, size and composition of electrodes and the electrode skin interface. Conclusion: Systematic evaluation of the individual parameters that can be manipulated in the nGVS waveform identified that a broad array of settings have been utilized in each parameter across the studies. Choices made around the electrode and electrode-skin interface, as well as the amplitude, frequency band, duration and timing of the waveform are likely to influence the efficacy of nGVS. The ability to draw robust conclusions about the selection of optimal nGVS parameters to improve postural control, is hindered by a lack of studies that directly compare parameter settings or consider the variability in individuals' response to nGVS. We propose a guideline for the accurate reporting of nGVS parameters, as a first step toward establishing standardized stimulation protocols.

Indexed as

balancegalvanic vestibular stimulationneuromodulationnGVSparametersposturestochastic resonancevestibular

Identifiers

PMID37205050
PMCPMC10187481
OpenAlexW4367852455

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.