Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38429713›Full record

ArticleJournal of neurodevelopmental disorders2024

Outcome measures in Angelman syndrome.

Doesjka A Hagenaar, Karen G C B Bindels-de Heus, Maud M van Gils, Louise van den Berg, Leontine W Ten Hoopen, Philine Affourtit, Johan J M Pel, Koen F M Joosten, Manon H J Hillegers, Henriëtte A Moll and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neurodevelopmental disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Use of Wearable Sensors in Angelman Syndrome: A Systematic Review.Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Remote EEG acquisition in Angelman syndrome using PANDABox-EEG.Journal of neurodevelopmental disorders · 2025
    Article
  4. 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

13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Doesjka A HagenaarENCORE Expertise Centre for Neurodevelopmental Disorders, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. d.hagenaar@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID 0009-0004-9274-6316
Karen G C B Bindels-de HeusENCORE Expertise Centre for Neurodevelopmental Disorders, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Maud M van GilsVestibular and Oculomotor Research Group, Department of Neuroscience, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Louise van den BergENCORE Expertise Centre for Neurodevelopmental Disorders, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Leontine W Ten HoopenENCORE Expertise Centre for Neurodevelopmental Disorders, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Philine AffourtitENCORE Expertise Centre for Neurodevelopmental Disorders, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Johan J M PelVestibular and Oculomotor Research Group, Department of Neuroscience, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Koen F M JoostenDivision of Pediatric ICU, Department of Neonatal and Pediatric ICU, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Manon H J HillegersDepartment of Child- and Adolescent Psychiatry/Psychology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Henriëtte A MollENCORE Expertise Centre for Neurodevelopmental Disorders, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Marie-Claire Y de WitENCORE Expertise Centre for Neurodevelopmental Disorders, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Gwen C DielemanENCORE Expertise Centre for Neurodevelopmental Disorders, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Sabine E MousENCORE Expertise Centre for Neurodevelopmental Disorders, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Erasmus MC · NL

Funding

Stichting Vrienden van het Sophia B17-04A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAngelman syndrome (AS) is a rare neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by severe intellectual disability, little to no expressive speech, visual and motor problems, emotional/behavioral challenges, and a tendency towards hyperphagia and weight gain. The characteristics of AS make it difficult to measure these children's functioning with standard clinical tests. Feasible outcome measures are needed to measure current functioning and change over time, in clinical practice and clinical trials.

aimOur first aim is to assess the feasibility of several functional tests. We target domains of neurocognitive functioning and physical growth using the following measurement methods: eye-tracking, functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS), indirect calorimetry, bio-impedance analysis (BIA), and BOD POD (air-displacement plethysmography). Our second aim is to explore the results of the above measures, in order to better understand the AS phenotype.

methodsThe study sample consisted of 28 children with AS aged 2-18 years. We defined an outcome measure as feasible when (1) at least 70% of participants successfully finished the measurement and (2) at least 60% of those participants had acceptable data quality. Adaptations to the test procedure and reasons for early termination were noted. Parents rated acceptability and importance and were invited to make recommendations to increase feasibility. The results of the measures were explored.

resultsOutcome measures obtained with eye-tracking and BOD POD met the definition of feasibility, while fNIRS, indirect calorimetry, and BIA did not. The most important reasons for early termination of measurements were showing signs of protest, inability to sit still and poor/no calibration (eye-tracking specific). Post-calibration was often applied to obtain valid eye-tracking results. Parents rated the BOD POD als most acceptable and fNIRS as least acceptable for their child. All outcome measures were rated to be important. Exploratory results indicated longer reaction times to high salient visual stimuli (eye-tracking) as well as high body fat percentage (BOD POD).

conclusionsEye-tracking and BOD POD are feasible measurement methods for children with AS. Eye-tracking was successfully used to assess visual orienting functions in the current study and (with some practical adaptations) can potentially be used to assess other outcomes as well. BOD POD was successfully used to examine body composition.

trial registrationRegistered d.d. 23-04-2020 under number 'NL8550' in the Dutch Trial Register: https://onderzoekmetmensen.nl/en/trial/23075.

Indexed as

Angelman SyndromeBody CompositionChildElectric ImpedanceHumansPlethysmographyReproducibility of ResultsAngelman syndromeBio-impedance analysisBOD PODEye-trackingFunctional near-Infrared SpectroscopyIndirect calorimetryOutcome measures

Identifiers

PMID38429713
PMCPMC10905876
OpenAlexW4392359798

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.