Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26605027›Full record

ReviewOrthopedic reviews2015

The Validity of Rasterstereography: A Systematic Review.

Melvin Mohokum, Samuel Schülein, Adrian Skwara

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Orthopedic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Melvin MohokumFachhochschule für Gesundheit , Gera, Germany.
Samuel SchüleinGeriatrics Center Erlangen, Waldkrankenhaus St. Marien , Erlangen, Germany.
Adrian SkwaraOrthopädische Gemeinschaftspraxis Borken , Germany.
Malteser Waldkrankenhaus Erlangen · DEPraxis für Humangenetik · DESRH Hochschule für Gesundheit Gera · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To investigate and monitor the progression of scoliosis and other spinal deformities in patients following idiopathic scoliosis (IS), non-invasive and radiation-free techniques are recommended because of the need for repeated radiographs. In a clinical setting, spine parameters can be quickly, cheaply and easily assessed using rasterstereography (RS). To assess the validity of the radiation-free technique RS based on surface topography compared with radiographs. MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library and EMBASE were systematically searched for studies which investigate the validity of rasterstereography compared with x-ray measurements. Studies published between January 1, 1990 and July 31, 2013 in English, German and French were included. Studies dealing with magnetic resonance imaging were excluded. Twelve studies with 570 patients were included; these articles were published between 1990 and 2013. The majority of studies investigated patients with IS, but other spinal pathologies included were thoracic hyperkyphosis and Scheuermann's disease. With regard to the quality assessment criteria for the included studies, three out of twelve studies were evaluated using a twelve point scale and two used a scale with eleven points. We conclude that RS facilitates clinical practice by analysing the spinal column. It is completely radiation-free and could help to monitor scoliosis progression.

Indexed as

rasterstereographyScoliosisspinal deformitiessurface topographyx-ray measurement

Identifiers

PMID26605027
PMCPMC4592930
OpenAlexW1810125499

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.