Observational studyMedicine2016
Factors affecting pelvic rotation in idiopathic scoliosis: Analysis of 85 cases in a single center.
Observational study in Medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Morphological and Morphometric Assessment of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis According to Pelvic Axial Rotation-A Retrospective Cohort Study with 397 Patients.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Relationship between the course of postoperative pelvic axis rotation and shoulder balance in patients with Lenke types 1 and 2 adolescent idiopathic scoliosis.Journal of orthopaedics · 2025Article
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 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pelvic rotation (PR) is commonly seen in patients with idiopathic scoliosis (IS), but factors contributing to this phenomenon and its relationship with the surgical outcome are not well established.This retrospective study included 85 IS patients in 2 groups: thoracic curve dominance group (group A) and lumbar curve dominance group (group B). Pre- and postoperative PR was measured on standing posteroanterior radiographs by the left/right ratio (L/R ratio) of horizontal distance between the anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS) and the inferior ilium (SI) at the sacroiliac joint on the same side in both groups. Other radiographic data, age, sex, and Risser sign of each patient were recorded to analyze their correlations with PR before and after operation.The patients ranged in age from 10 to 35 years with a mean of 17.0 ± 5.2 years. The mean L/R ratio of PR before operation was 0.99 (0.73-1.40) versus 0.98 (0.87-1.26) after operation. The L/R ration was beyond the range of 1 ± 0.1 (indicating the presence of PR) in 17 (20%) patients before operation and in 14 (16.5%) patients after operation. There was no significant difference in PR between the 2 groups of patients either before (P = 0.468) or after (P = 0.944) surgery. The preoperative PR showed a very low correlation with Risser sign (r = 0.220, P = 0.043), apex vertebral rotation (AVR) in the proximal thoracic curve (r = 0.242, P = 0.026), and AVR in the lumbar curve (r = 0.213, P = 0.049), while the postoperative PR showed a very low correlation with Risser sign (r = -0.341, P = 0.001) and postoperative trunk shift (TS) (r = -0.282, P = 0.009). Multiple stepwise regression analysis showed that preoperative PR was affected by proximal thoracic curve AVR and lumbar curve AVR.There was no significant difference between PR before operation and 2 years after operation. Preoperative PR was mainly correlated with Risser sign and the rotation status of the proximal thoracic curve and lumbar curve, while postoperative PR was mainly correlated with Risser sign and postoperative TS.
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.