Trial reportScientific reports2019
Comparison of intra subject repeatability of quantitative fluoroscopy and static radiography in the measurement of lumbar intervertebral flexion translation.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances in the Measurement and Interpretation of Intervertebral Motion in the Lumbar Spine: A Scoping Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The relation between bulk (external) and internal measures of spinal stiffness.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2025Article
- Article
- A Reference Database of Standardised Continuous Lumbar Intervertebral Motion Analysis for Conducting Patient-Specific Comparisons.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2021Article
- An in vivo study exploring correlations between early-to-moderate disc degeneration and flexion mobility in the lumbar spine.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2020Article
- Brain-based symptoms reported in young adults evaluated for cervical spine etiology: a retrospective, cross-sectional clinical study with preliminary data on over 200 patients.Frontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Low back pain patients are sometimes offered fusion surgery if intervertebral translation, measured from static, end of range radiographs exceeds 3 mm. However, it is essential to know the measurement error of such methods, if selection for back surgery is going to be informed by them. Fifty-five healthy male (34) and female (21) pain free participants aged 21-80 years received quantitative fluoroscopic (QF) imaging both actively during standing and passively in the lateral decubitus position. The following five imaging protocols were extracted from 2 motion examinations, which were repeated 6 weeks apart: 1. Static during upright free bending. 2. Maximum during controlled upright bending, 3. At the end of controlled upright bending, 4. Maximum during controlled recumbent bending, 5. At the end of controlled recumbent bending. Intervertebral flexion translations from L2-S1 were determined for each protocol and their measurement errors (intra subject repeatability) calculated. Estimations using static, free bending radiographic images gave measurement errors of up to 4 mm, which was approximately twice that of the QF protocols. Significantly higher ranges at L4-5 and L5-S1 were obtained from the static protocol compared with the QF protocols. Weight bearing ranges at these levels were also significantly higher in males regardless of the protocol. Clinical decisions based on sagittal translations of less than 4 mm would therefore require QF imaging.
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.