ArticleThe Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association2019
Would adopting a revised landmark rule for the spinal level of the iliac crests improve the accuracy of lumbar level identification?
Article in The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This is a secondary analysis of two previous systematic reviews demonstrating cephalad bias in using palpation to enumerate lumbopelvic levels, based on the conventional landmark rule that the spinal level of the palpated iliac crests=L4. Our study included 7 articles which enumerated lumbopelvic levels based on this rule, and furthermore reported data such that the direction and magnitude of errors could be abstracted from the article. The primary goal was to determine if enumeration accuracy would have improved had examiners known that the spinal level of palpated crests was closer to the L3-4 or L3 spinal level, as shown in our previous review. For the articles included, the mean error in spinal level enumeration diminished from 0.79 to -0.21 spinal levels, while accuracy increased from 26.3% to 46.9%. Since accuracy remained <50%, further refinements in iliac crest palpation are unlikely to improve enumeration accuracy, suggesting another method might best be sought.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31057175PMC6493207W3024954119What 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.