ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2014
Effectiveness of three types of lumbar orthosis for restricting extension motion.
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2014. 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.
- Evaluating Interface Pressure Distribution and Range of Motion in a Mesh-Structure 3D-Printed Lumbar Brace.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Remote Orthotic Fabrication Method Using Small Three-Dimensional Printers and Computed Tomography Data: A Technical Report.Fukushima journal of medical science · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of orthoses for treatment in patients with spinal pain.Yeungnam University journal of medicine · 2020Article
- What Type of Orthosis is Optimal for Conservative Treatment of Lumbar Spondylolysis?: A Biomechanical Analysis.Spine surgery and related research · 2020Article
- Effectiveness of lumbar orthoses in low back pain: Review of the literature and our results.Orthopedic reviews · 2018Article
- The effects of stabilization exercise with an oral assistive device on pain and functionality of low back pain patients.Journal of physical therapy science · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Spinal orthoses are implemented to restrict lumbar motion. Several studies have compared the effectiveness of various types of lumbar orthoses on restricting motion, but none have compared the effect of different back supports on restricting extension. This study sought to evaluate the effectiveness of three types of lumbar orthosis in regard to their ability to restrict motion during extension. Range of motion was quantified using the Spinal Mouse system to measure flexion and extension, and the load distribution of the back support was measured using a pressure sensor. Ten subjects (8 men, 2 women) were assessed under the following five experimental conditions: custom-made stay (CMS), aluminum stay (AS), plastic stay (PS), corset only, and no brace. None of the stays changed the flexion angle, and none of the supports prevented flexion bending. The mean extension angle after immobilization with the CMS, AS, PS, corset only, and no brace was 27.5° ± 8.5°, 33.4° ± 11.0°, 34.3° ± 9.4°, 37.8° ± 10.7°, and 42.6° ± 10.5°, respectively. The load in the CMS was concentrated at the vertical ends of the stay, with a mean load of 11.5 ± 2.4 N at the top and 8.9 ± 2.4 N at the bottom. The loads at the top and bottom of the support were 7.2 ± 4.3 and 5.3 ± 3.1 N with the AS and 5.8 ± 2.3 and 4.4 ± 1.7 N with the PS, respectively. All supports allowed similar flexion motion. Although the CMS, AS, and PS all restricted extension compared with no brace, the CMS was the most effective for restricting trunk extension motion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24728780What 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.