ArticlePloS one2026
Evaluation of a new clinical test protocol for pointing acuity - An initial validity study.
Article in PloS one, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sensorimotor control of the arm and hand can be disturbed in various health conditions causing deviant and unfavourable movement patterns. This study aimed to evaluate a new clinical test protocol for pointing acuity using the Leap Motion Controller (LMC) and assess the concurrent validity against a standard laboratory motion capture system (Qualisys Motion Capture, QMC). Twenty participants (mean age 44.4 years) performed the pointing acuity tests with eyes open and closed, and with left and right hand. Outcome measure was the mean absolute error (AE) in millimeters (mm) of 10 trials. Pearson's r or Spearman's rho were used to analyse the correlations between LMC and QMC, and Bland-Altman were used to analyse the agreement. There were moderate to very strong correlations (r: 0.67 to 0.95) between LMC and QMC in tests with eyes closed. In contrast, tests with eyes open showed weak correlations; rho 0.27 for both left and right hand. Bland-Altman showed median bias of ≤ 1.4 mm (LoA 0.1 to 17.5 mm) between LMC and QMC with eyes open, and ≤ 5.1 mm (LoA -31.6 to 21.5 mm) with eyes closed. Assessing pointing acuity using LMC with a standardized test protocol has an acceptable concurrent validity when compared to a 3D-based multi camera system (QMC), supporting its potential use in clinical settings. Future research should evaluate its psychometric properties regarding discriminative validity, reliability and responsiveness in various populations.
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.