ArticleExperimental physiology2026
Intracortical inhibition, corticospinal excitability and voluntary activation in people with and without patellofemoral pain.
Article in Experimental physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Intracortical inhibition, corticospinal excitability and voluntary activation in people with and without patellofemoral pain.Experimental physiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The aims of this study were to investigate the intra-rater reliability of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in people with and without patellofemoral pain (PFP) and to compare nervous system function between these groups, using a case-control design. We sought people with and without PFP to participate in PNS and TMS testing to calculate maximal compound motor action potential, maximal force, voluntary activation (VA), active motor threshold (AMT), corticospinal excitability (CSE), silent period, and short-interval intracortical inhibition. People with PFP also rated their current pain and function. Single-measure intraclass correlation coefficients with 95% confidence intervals were used to determine intra-rater reliability, with standard error of measurement and minimum detectable change calculated. Between-group differences in PNS and TMS variables were determined using Student's two-tailed, independent samples t-tests or Mann-Whitney U-tests. Twenty-seven people without and 23 people with PFP completed PNS and TMS testing. For intra-rater reliability, 18 people without and 17 people with PFP returned for a second testing session, and intraclass correlation coefficient values ranged from good to excellent (0.62-0.96). People with PFP demonstrated significantly lower VA (P < 0.0001), higher AMT (P = 0.014) and lower CSE (P = 0.018). In conclusion, both PNS and TMS demonstrate acceptable intra-rater reliability in people with and without PFP. Elevated AMT and reduced CSE indicate that people with PFP might have a hypoexcitable motor cortex-corticospinal pathway, and lower VA indicates reduced recruitment of high-threshold motor units. These findings indicate that a neurophysiological mechanism might underpin the poor prognosis of PFP.
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.