Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22076645›Full record

ArticleSpine2012

Transmission of force in the lumbosacral spine during backward falls.

Carolyn Van Toen, Meena M Sran, Stephen N Robinovitch, Peter A Cripton

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Spine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Impact forces in backward falls: Subject-specific video-based rigid body simulation of backward falls.Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Carolyn Van ToenOrthopaedic and Injury Biomechanics Group, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Meena M Sran
Stephen N Robinovitch
Peter A Cripton
Simon Fraser University · CAUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

CIHR 100487CIHR 103945
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designMathematical model, combined with and verified using human subject data.

objective(1) To develop and verify a lumped-parameter mathematical model for prediction of spine forces during backward falls; (2) to use this model to evaluate the effect of floor stiffness on spine forces during falls; and (3) to compare predicted impact forces with forces previously measured to fracture the spine. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Vertebral fractures are the most common osteoporotic fractures and commonly result from falls from standing height. Compliant flooring reduces the force at the ground during a backward fall from standing; however, the effect on spine forces is unknown.

methodsA 6-df model of the body was developed and verified using data from 10 human subjects falling from standing onto 3 types of compliant floors (soft: 59 kN/m, medium: 67 kN/m, and firm: 95 kN/m). The simulated ground forces were compared with those measured experimentally. The model was also used to assess the effect of floor stiffness on spine forces at various intervertebral levels.

resultsThere was less than 14% difference between model predictions and experimentally measured peak ground reaction forces, when averaged over all floor conditions. When compared with the rigid floor, average peak spine force attenuations of 46%, 43%, and 41% were achieved with the soft, medium, and firm floors, respectively (3.7, 3.9, 4.1 kN vs. 6.9 kN at L4/L5). Spine forces were lower than those at the ground and decreased cranially (4.9, 3.9, 3.7, 3.5 kN at the ground, L5/S1, L4/L5, and L3/L4, respectively, for the soft floor).

conclusionLowering the floor stiffness (from 400 to 59 kN/m) can attenuate peak lumbosacral spine forces in a backward fall onto the buttocks from standing by 46% (average peak from 6.9 to 3.7 kN at L4/L5) to values closer to the average tolerance of the spine to fracture (3.4 kN).

Indexed as

Accidental FallsBiomechanical PhenomenaButtocksComplianceComputer SimulationFloors and FloorcoveringsHumansLumbar VertebraeModels, BiologicalPostureSacrumSpinal FracturesStress, MechanicalWeight-Bearing

Identifiers

PMID22076645
PMCPMC3438202
OpenAlexW2091834110

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.