ArticleClinical parkinsonism & related disorders2025
Examining Balance and the Likelihood of Falls in Huntington's Disease.
Article in Clinical parkinsonism & related disorders, 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.
- Falls in Huntington's Disease: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Clinical Features and Potential Contributors.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Balance impairment may begin prior to motor diagnosis in Huntington's disease (HD) and is associated with an increased risk of falls-an important predictor of nursing home placement. Objective: To evaluate the ability of three balance measures to discriminate between Fallers and Non-Fallers and to estimate the likelihood of falling in HD patients. Methods: 125 gene-positive individuals were stratified into Fallers (n = 30) and Non-Fallers (n = 95) based on fall history. Participants completed a Total Body Sway (TBS) assessment using the BTrackS™ Balance Plate, Timed Up-and-Go (TUG), and Chair Sit-to-Stand Test (CST). Group differences were analyzed with Mann-Whitney Results: Fallers demonstrated significantly higher TBS scores compared to Non-Fallers (p < 0.001), while differences on TUG (p = 0.098) and CST (p = 1.00) were not significant. TBS yielded the highest area under the curve (AUC = 0.89, p < 0.001), followed by TUG (AUC = 0.66, p = 0.008), while CST did not discriminate between groups (AUC = 0.47, p = 0.617). TBS also demonstrated superior diagnostic utility (LR+ = 5.06; LR- = 0.24) compared to TUG (LR+ = 3.41; LR- = 0.62) and CST (LR+ = 1.59; LR- = 0.90). Conclusion: TBS and, to a lesser extent, TUG are valid tools for identifying individuals at risk of falling in HD. In contrast, the CST may not be an effective clinical measure in this regard.
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.