ReviewCerebellum (London, England)2026
Exploring the Potential of Scales to Assess Different Types of Ataxia: Meta-review.
Review in Cerebellum (London, England), 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ataxia is a coordination disorder that encompasses more than 300 neurological diseases and more than 200 types of hereditary ataxia. Depending on the pathology with which it is associated, the symptomatology present is different: balance and gait disturbance, dysdiadochokinesia, dysarthria, nystagmus, etc. Due to this heterogeneity, the assessment of ataxia is a complex task that is further hindered by the broad variety of existing tools, both specific to ataxia and related to a particular pathology, such as those that assess coordination and gait components. Analyse, organize and compare the structural and psychometric characteristics of the tools used for the assessment of different types of ataxia. A meta-review registered in PROSPERO was conducted following the PRISMA Checklist System. Six database were used and two blinded researchers selected the papers according the criteria. Five reviews were included in this study. The main psychometric properties of the 16 scales found to assess ataxia symptoms in different pathologies were analysed. Internal consistency and reliability obtained good-to-excellent values for the total score of the different scales and parameters studied. However, validity and sensitivity showed less homogeneous values. The scales that globally assess the severity of the disease stand out, with a great variety of scales, including the International Cooperative Ataxia Assessment Scale (ICARS) and the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxias (SARA) as the most widely used.
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.