ArticleBrain and behavior2024
Visual evoked potential in generalized joint hypermobility: A case-control study.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomarkers and Rehabilitation for Functional Neurological Disorder.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Visual evoked potential in generalized joint hypermobility: A case-control study.Brain and behavior · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGeneralized joint hypermobility (GJH) can be the result of several hereditary connective tissue disorders, especially Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. Cerebrovascular manifestations are among the most common complications in this disorder, and understanding their extent can help better diagnosis and prevention of hazardous events. We investigated visual evoked potential (VEP) changes in patients with GJH and compared them with healthy individuals.
methodsOur case-control study included 90 patients who fulfilled the Beighton score (B score) for joint hypermobility and other 90 healthy participants. All of them went under VEP study, and the amplitude and latency of the evoked potential (P100) were compared to each other.
resultsThe Case group had significantly higher B score (7.18 ± 0.967 vs. 1.18 ± 0.712), P100 latency (110.23 ± 6.64 ms vs. 100.18 ± 4.273 ms), and amplitude (6.54 ± 1.26 mv vs. 6.50 ± 1.29 mv) compared with the Control group, but the difference was only significant regarding B score, and P100 latency (p-value <.0001). Moreover, both latency and amplitude of P100 had significantly positive correlations with the B score in the Case group (p-value <.0001), but such correlations were not found in the Control group (p-value = .059).
conclusionOur study could reveal VEP changes, especially significant P100 latency in GJH patients without previous neurologic or musculoskeletal disorders. Whether these changes are due to GJH itself or are predictive of inevitable neurologic disease or visual pathway involvement, particularly Multiple Sclerosis needs further investigation with longer follow-up periods.
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.