ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2017
A Comparison of Cervical Spine Motion After Immobilization With a Traditional Spine Board and Full-Body Vacuum-Mattress Splint.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Consensus Recommendations on the Prehospital Care of the Injured Athlete With a Suspected Catastrophic Cervical Spine Injury.Journal of athletic training · 2020Pooled it
- Validity of Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU Sensor) for Measurement of Cervical Spine Motion, Compared with Eight Optoelectronic 3D Cameras Under Spinal Immobilization Devices.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2024Article
- Comparing the Efficacy of Long Spinal Board, Sked Stretcher, and Vacuum Mattress in Cervical Spine Immobilization; a Method-Oriented Experimental Study.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2023Article
- Analysis of cervical spine immobilization during patient transport in emergency medical services.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe National Athletic Trainers' Association (NATA) advocates for cervical spine immobilization on a rigid board or vacuum splint and for removal of athletic equipment before transfer to an emergency medical facility. PURPOSE: To (1) compare triplanar cervical spine motion using motion capture between a traditional rigid spine board and a full-body vacuum splint in equipped and unequipped athletes, (2) assess cervical spine motion during the removal of a football helmet and shoulder pads, and (3) evaluate the effect of body mass on cervical spine motion. STUDY
designControlled laboratory study.
methodsTwenty healthy male participants volunteered for this study to examine the influence of immobilization type and presence of equipment on triplanar angular cervical spine motion. Three-dimensional cervical spine kinematics was measured using an electromagnetic motion analysis system. Independent variables included testing condition (static lift and hold, 30° tilt, transfer, equipment removal), immobilization type (rigid, vacuum-mattress), and equipment (on, off). Peak sagittal-, frontal-, and transverse-plane angular motions were the primary outcome measures of interest.
resultsSubjective ratings of comfort and security did not differ between immobilization types (
conclusionThe current study confirms similar motion in the vacuum-mattress splint compared with the rigid backboard in varying sized equipped or nonequipped athletes. Cervical spine motion occurs when removing a football helmet and shoulder pads, at an unknown risk to the injured athlete. In athletes who weighed more than 250 lb, immobilization with the rigid board helped to reduce cervical spine motion. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Athletic trainers and team physicians should consider immobilization of athletes who weigh more than 250 lb with a rigid board.
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.