ArticleFrontiers in neurology
Test-retest reliability of motion capture technology for assessing balance in children with autism spectrum disorder.
Article in Frontiers in neurology. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) often show balance impairments that may affect motor development. Portable motion capture may provide quantitative balance indices, but its test-retest reliability in pediatric ASD remains unclear. Research question: This study evaluated seven-day test-retest reliability of a portable marker-based motion capture system for head-sway-derived balance indices in children with ASD and described exploratory unadjusted differences from typically developing (TD) children. Methods: Twenty-two children (11 ASD, 11 TD) completed long-sitting, eyes-open standing, and eyes-closed standing balance tests using head-mounted reflective markers. Outcomes were mediolateral sway amplitude (Dx), anteroposterior sway amplitude (Dy), and 95% confidence ellipse area (Area). Reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients, standard error of measurement, and Bland-Altman plots. Between-group analyses were exploratory because the groups were not matched by age or sex. Results: In children with ASD, Dy showed good reliability (ICC = 0.77-0.87; SEM = 1.98-3.19), with the highest reliability in long sitting (ICC = 0.87). Dx showed poor to moderate reliability (ICC = 0.45-0.69), and Area showed moderate to good reliability (ICC = 0.65-0.77). Exploratory comparisons showed larger sway values in the ASD group, but these results may reflect baseline age and sex differences. Significance: The system reproducibly measured anteroposterior head-sway in children with ASD, particularly in long sitting. Further validation against reference balance measures and larger age- and sex-matched studies is needed before diagnostic or discriminative use.
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.