ArticleCoDAS2025
Validation of a freely distributable software for the analysis of electrophysiological signals: Smart Tools for Evoked Potentials (STEP).
Article in CoDAS, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to validate the STEP, an application developed for the analysis of various auditory and vestibular electrophysiological signals. The STEP was designed to enhance the accuracy and efficiency of latency and amplitude analysis, as well as other waveform morphological features such as calculation of area, slope, and Fast Fourier Transform (FFT).
methodsThe methodology was structured into two phases: one involving simulated waveforms and the other based on experimental data. In the first phase, waveforms were generated using mathematical functions, and their features were marked and analyzed both by trained examiners and by the STEP application. In the second phase, the STEP was tested using real electrophysiological recordings, with latency and amplitude values compared across STEP and two established gold-standard systems.
resultsThe results demonstrated high accuracy of STEP in both manual and automatic peak and trough markings, as well as in subsequent calculations. No statistically significant differences were found among the evaluated systems, nor between the examiners.
conclusionThe STEP proved to be a reliable tool for identifying latencies and amplitudes of electrophysiological waveforms and for performing additional analyses, including P1N1 area calculation, slope estimation, and FFT analysis.
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.