ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2026
Standardization and optimization of force platform testing for balance assessment in cervical spondylotic myelopathy.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare the discriminative performance of different force platform testing methods for distinguishing patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) from asymptomatic controls and to evaluate the effects of arm position and test duration on individual balance parameters. Methods: In this cross sectional study, 56 patients with CSM and 50 asymptomatic volunteers were enrolled between March to December 2025. Balance function was measured with the eMat 500 force platform under two standing postures, arms hanging down and arms extended forward, both performed with the feet together and the eyes closed, and each posture was tested at durations of 15, 30, and 60s. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to compare the diagnostic value of the different posture and duration combinations. Results: The diagnostic efficiencies of the six test protocols were all different for the four balance parameters. The center of pressure (COP) trajectory length and the mediolateral centre of gravity velocity performed best at 15 s with arms hanging down, the anteroposterior centre of gravity velocity performed best at 60s with arms extended forward, and the area of the 95% confidence ellipse performed best at 30s with arms extended forward. Combined ROC analysis ranked the overall diagnostic performance of the six protocols from best to worst as follows: 30s with arms hanging down (AUC = 0.897), 15 s with arms hanging down (AUC = 0.890), 30s with arms extended forward (AUC = 0.878), 60s with arms extended forward (AUC = 0.869), 60s with arms hanging down (AUC = 0.855), and 15 s with arms extended forward (AUC = 0.840). Conclusion: The research results indicate that the 30s both arms hanging down test has the highest diagnostic value. This testing approach has the potential to improve the efficiency of outpatient assessment for patients with CSM.
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.