ArticleArchives of physiotherapy
A new test protocol and device for measuring the cranio-cervical flexion test in participants with bruxism.
Article in Archives of physiotherapy. 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.
- Article
- Concurrent validity of a novel digital dynamometerfor assessing performance on the Cranio-Cervical Flexion Test.Archives of physiotherapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The craniocervical flexion test (CCFT) has been proposed to assess muscular stabilization using deep neck flexors. Reliability of the CCFT using a pressure biofeedback unit has been regarded as doubtful, and the level of evidence is reportedly low.The aim of the current study is to pilot test an alternative measurement protocol by using a new digital device during the staged CCFT when compared to surface electromyography (sEMG) of neck flexor muscles in participants with bruxism. Methods: Cross-sectional pilot study including five participants with bruxism and five controls. Measuring five incremental stages (20-100%), from a maximum force of 17 N for the CCFT and parallel to sEMG measurements of bilateral sternocleidomastoideus (SCM) and masseter muscles. SEMG data were normalized to their activity during maximal voluntary contraction. Performance during the staged CCFT was fed back via a smartphone screen. Results: A two-way repeated measures ANOVA found a significant stage (F = 32.56, df = 4, p = 0.001) but not group (0.30, df = 1, p = 0.65) main effect for SCM activity, with both groups demonstrating higher normalized sEMG activity for incremental stages of the CCFT. Neither group nor stage effects were found for normalized masseter activity during the staged CCFT. Conclusion: A new measurement protocol and test device for the CCFT were examined in participants with and without bruxism. In parallel, sEMG used showed differences in SCM activity for incremental test stages. Group differences could not be found.
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.