ArticleJournal of neurology2020
Appropriate assessment method of
Article in Journal of neurology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Value of multi-parameterEJNMMI research · 2025Article
- Urodynamic study and its correlation with cardiac meta-iodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) in body-first and brain-first subtypes of Parkinson's disease.European journal of neurology · 2024Article
- Blunted tachycardia and cardiac sympathetic denervation in isolated rapid eye movement sleep behavior disorder.BMC neurology · 2024Article
- Autonomic dysfunction in Huntington's disease: AJournal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2022Article
- Research progress on neuromolecular imaging of REM sleep behavior disorder.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Review
- Neurochemical Features of Rem Sleep Behaviour Disorder.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn
methodsIn this single-center retrospective cohort study, we recruited 106 patients with LBDs or iRBD and 33 patients without those diseases, of whom we reviewed the
resultsSensitivity/specificity to diagnose LBDs and iRBD were 0.77/0.94 for the early H/M ratio (≤ 2.0), 0.82/0.94 for the delayed H/M ratio (≤ 2.0), and 0.89/0.91 for WR (≥ 23.0). When patients were considered positive if at least either the early H/M ratio or WR was abnormal, the sensitivity significantly increased to 0.97, whereas the specificity remained similar at 0.91. Furthermore, our subgroup analyses revealed that WR enhancement preceded H/M ratio reduction, but, in patients with a severely reduced early H/M ratio, paradoxically normal WR could be observed.
conclusionWe propose the highly sensitive, combined early H/M ratio and WR assessments for
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.