SynthesisBrain and behavior2026
Sensory Tricks in Dystonia: A Systematic Review and Nested Quantitative Synthesis.
Synthesis in Brain and behavior, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSensory tricks (also termed "alleviating maneuvers") are voluntary maneuvers that transiently alleviate dystonic postures or movements and represent a hallmark clinical feature of dystonia with diagnostic and mechanistic significance. Despite extensive phenomenological description, the evidence base has not been systematically synthesized.
objectivesTo characterize the prevalence, phenomenology, clinical effects, predictors, neurobiological mechanisms, and translational relevance of alleviating maneuvers in dystonia, and to prospectively evaluate the feasibility of quantitative synthesis across predefined outcome domains.
methodsA systematic review with a prespecified nested quantitative synthesis was conducted using a preregistered PROSPERO protocol (CRD420251175065). The nested component was defined a priori as a domain-restricted analytic strategy in which random-effects meta-analysis was planned where ≥ 3 conceptually comparable studies were available, and in which the feasibility of pooling was itself treated as a primary methodological outcome. PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception. Studies reporting original empirical data on alleviating maneuvers in human dystonia of any etiology were included. Qualitative synthesis examined phenomenology, clinical effects, predictors, mechanisms, and translational applications. Heterogeneity was examined separately along clinical, methodological, and outcome-level dimensions.
resultsOf 631 records, 53 studies met inclusion criteria; 31 contributed to qualitative synthesis and 26 to nested quantitative analyses, with 4 contributing to both. No eligible studies in functional or tardive dystonia were identified. Alleviating maneuvers were reported across dystonia subtypes, with prevalence ranging from 13% to 90%; the largest registry cohort (n = 1477) reported effective maneuvers in 68.7% of patients. Acute motor improvements of 30%-50% in head deviation were reported during trick execution, although effects were transient. Responsiveness was associated with shorter disease duration and better response to botulinum toxin. No domain met criteria for formal meta-analysis; structural barriers were predominantly methodological and outcome-level rather than clinical.
conclusionsAlleviating maneuvers are a clinically consistent and mechanistically informative feature of dystonia, but their magnitude, durability, and predictors remain inconsistently measured. Standardized paradigms and outcome reporting are required to enable quantitative synthesis and sham-controlled evaluation of device-based alleviating-maneuver analogues.
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.