ArticleClinical neurophysiology practice2025
Contralateral R1 response in blink reflex in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.
Article in Clinical neurophysiology practice, 2025. 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare the frequency of blink reflex's contralateral R1 responses (R1') between patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), non-ALS motor deficit patients, and healthy volunteers. Methods: A total of 120 participants were prospectively recruited: 40 with ALS, 40 with a non-ALS motor deficit, and 40 healthy volunteers. Blink reflexes were recorded from orbicularis oculi muscles following supraorbital nerve stimulation. Results: R1' was more frequent in the ALS group (42.5 %) compared to healthy volunteers (12.5 %, p = 0.00588), and compared to non-ALS patients (7.5 %, p = 0.000789). Bilateral R1' was observed only in ALS patients (22.5 %). No clinically significant difference was found in the latencies or amplitudes of the R1, R2, or R1' responses among groups. R1' was more frequent in ALS patients with pseudobulbar affect (71.4 %) compared to those without (36.4 %). Conclusions: The higher frequency of R1' in ALS highlights its potential role in distinguishing ALS from other motor disorders. Its sensitivity was low, but bilateral R1' was specific to ALS. The higher frequency of R1' among ALS patients with pseudobulbar affect potentially reflects corticobulbar neuron degeneration. Significance: The R1', especially when bilateral, could serve as an additional diagnostic biomarker for ALS, although its clinical relevance should be considered within the broader diagnostic context.
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.