ArticleItalian journal of pediatrics2023
Using the center of pressure movement analysis in evaluating spontaneous movements in infants: a comparative study with general movements assessment.
Article in Italian journal of pediatrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Video and Wearable Sensor Technologies for Early Detection of Cerebral Palsy in Infants: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Optimal Algorithms for Improving Pressure-Sensitive Mat Centre of Pressure Measurements.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- A systematic review of portable technologies for the early assessment of motor development in infants.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResearchers have attempted to automate the spontaneous movement assessment and have sought quantitative and objective methods over the past decade. The purpose of the study was to present a quantitative assessment method of spontaneous movement using center-of-pressure (COP) movement analysis.
methodsA total of 101 infants were included in the study. The infants were placed in the supine position on the force plate with the cranial-caudal orientation. In this position, the recording of video and COP movement data were made simultaneously for 3 min. Video recordings were used to observe global and detailed general movement assessment (GMA), and COP time series data were used to obtain quantitative movement parameters.
resultsAccording to the global GMA, 13 infants displayed absent fidgety movements (FMs) and 88 infants displayed normal FMs. The binary logistic regression model indicated significant association between global GMA and COP movement parameters (chi-square = 20.817, p < 0.001). The sensitivity, specificity, and overall accuracy of this model were 85% (95% CI: 55-98), 83% (95% CI: 73-90), and 83% (95% CI: 74-90), respectively. The multiple linear regression model showed a significant association between detailed GMA (motor optimality score-revised/MOS-R) and COP movement parameters (F = 10.349, p < 0.001). The MOS-R total score was predicted with a standard error of approximately 1.8 points (6%).
conclusionsThe present study demonstrated the possible avenues for using COP movement analysis to objectively detect the absent FMs and MOS-R total score in clinical settings. Although the method presented in this study requires further validation, it may complement observational GMA and be clinically useful for infant screening purposes, particularly in clinical settings where access to expertise in observational GMA is not available.
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.