ArticleSystematic reviews2026
A study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis on macroscopic body movements as a marker for acute stress.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundExperiencing stress is a normative part of human life. Due to its major impact on health and longevity, effort has been put into understanding underlying determinants and consequences. For stress measurement, a vast number of different methods, including physiological, subjective, and behavioral assessments, can be used. Previous measurement methods have already provided valuable insights into the role of the stress systems. However, their application has some drawbacks, highlighting the need for more convenient, less expensive, less intrusive, and continuous methods. A promising alternative could be the assessment of macroscopic body movements, which we define as body movements that are actively, consciously, or unconsciously, initiated by the muscular system.
methodsThe study protocol was registered with PROSPERO, and PRISMA-P guidelines were followed. We will screen MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar for suitable studies in German or English with no restrictions towards the publication date. To do so, an a priori defined search strategy will be employed. Furthermore, we will carry out backward and forward citation searches. Inclusion criteria comprise studies examining macroscopic body movements in response to stress or related psychological constructs induced by standardized protocols. Exclusion criteria include studies on non-human populations as well as studies that do not report on a control group/condition nor pre-/post-comparisons nor traditional stress markers. The search, selection, and data extraction processes will be performed by two reviewers independently, while a third reviewer will be consulted in case of discrepancy. We will assess Risk of Bias using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool or ROBINS-I, as appropriate. We will conduct random-effects meta-analyses where feasible. The quality of evidence will be evaluated using the GRADE approach. Furthermore, results will undergo critical examination towards meta-biases. DISCUSSION: Due to the growing number of studies assessing macroscopic movements in the context of stress, the field is becoming complex, highlighting the need for a summary of current findings. Thus, here we outline a study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis on macroscopic movements as a potential novel marker for stress. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024539659.
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.