Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26535397›Full record

ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2015

Controlled Laboratory Comparison Study of Motion With Football Equipment in a Destabilized Cervical Spine: Three Spine-Board Transfer Techniques.

Mark L Prasarn, MaryBeth Horodyski, Matthew J DiPaola, Christian P DiPaola, Gianluca Del Rossi, Bryan P Conrad, Glenn R Rechtine

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact, top 90% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mark L PrasarnDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of Texas, Houston, Texas, USA.
MaryBeth HorodyskiDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Matthew J DiPaolaDepartment of Orthopaedics, Wright State University, Dayton VA Medical Center, Dayton, Ohio, USA.
Christian P DiPaolaUniversity of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA.
Gianluca Del RossiDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA.
Bryan P ConradDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Glenn R RechtineDepartment of Orthopaedics, VA Medical Center, Asheville, North Carolina, USA.
University of Florida · USUniversity of Massachusetts Chan Medical School · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNumerous studies have shown that there are better alternatives to log rolling patients with unstable spinal injuries, although this method is still commonly used for placing patients onto a spine board. No previous studies have examined transfer maneuvers involving an injured football player with equipment in place onto a spine board. PURPOSE: To test 3 different transfer maneuvers of an injured football player onto a spine board to determine which method most effectively minimizes spinal motion in an injured cervical spine model. STUDY

designControlled laboratory study.

methodsFive whole, lightly embalmed cadavers were fitted with shoulder pads and helmets and tested both before and after global instability was surgically created at C5-C6. An electromagnetic motion analysis device was used to assess the amount of angular and linear motion with sensors placed above and below the injured segment during transfer. Spine-boarding techniques evaluated were the log roll, the lift and slide, and the 8-person lift.

resultsThe 8-person lift technique resulted in the least amount of angular and linear motion for all planes tested as compared with the lift-and-slide and log-roll techniques. This reached statistical significance for lateral bending (P = .031) and medial-lateral translation (P = .030) when compared with the log-roll maneuver. The lift-and-slide technique was significantly more effective at reducing motion than the log roll for axial rotation (P = .029) and lateral bending (P = .006).

conclusionThe log roll resulted in the most motion at an unstable cervical injury as compared with the other 2 spine-boarding techniques examined. The 8-person lift and lift-and-slide techniques may both be more effective than the log roll at reducing unwanted cervical spine motion when spine boarding an injured football player. Reduction of such motion is critical in the prevention of iatrogenic injury.

Indexed as

8-person liftcervical spinefootballlift and slidelog rollspine board

Identifiers

PMID26535397
PMCPMC4622296
OpenAlexW2167635704

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.