ArticleJournal of biomechanics2013
Clinical and statistical correlation of various lumbar pathological conditions.
Article in Journal of biomechanics, 2013. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Current clinical evaluations often rely on static anatomic imaging modalities for diagnosis of mechanical low back pain, which provide anatomic snapshots and a surrogate analysis of a functional disease. Three dimensional in vivo motion is available with the use of digital fluoroscopy, which was used to capture kinematic data of the lumbar spine in order to identify coefficients of motion that may assist the physician in differentiating patient pathology. Forty patients distributed among 4 classes of lumbar degeneration, from healthy to degenerative, underwent CT, MRI, and digital x-ray fluoroscopy. Each patient underwent diagnosis by a neurosurgeon. Fluoroscopy was taken as the patient performed lateral bending (LB), axial rotation (AR) and flexion-extension (FE). Patient specific models were registered with the fluoroscopy images to obtain in vivo kinematic data. Motion coefficients, C(LB), C(AR), C(FE), were calculated as the ratio of in-plane motion to total out-of-plane motion. Range of motion (ROM) was calculated about the axis of motion for each exercise. Inter- and Intra- group statistics were examined for each coefficient and a flexible Bayesian classifier was used to differentiate patients with degeneration. The motion coefficients C(LB) and C(FE) were significantly different (p<0.05) in 4 of 6 group comparisons. In plane motion, ROM(LB), was significantly different in only 1 of 6 group comparisons. The classifier achieved 95% sensitivity and specificity using (C(FE), C(LB), ROM(LB)) as input features, and 40% specificity and 80% sensitivity using ROM variables. The new coefficients were better correlated with patient pathology than ROM measures. The coefficients suggest a relationship between pathology and measured motion which has not been reported previously.
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.