Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32807186›Full record

ArticleChiropractic & manual therapies2020

The bench-top accuracy of the VerteTrack spinal stiffness assessment device.

Anika Young, Michael S Swain, Gregory N Kawchuk, Arnold Y L Wong, Aron S Downie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chiropractic & manual therapies, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors.

Anika YoungDepartment of Chiropractic, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. annie.young@mq.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-5730-0184
Michael S SwainDepartment of Chiropractic, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Gregory N KawchukDepartment of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Arnold Y L WongDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong.
Aron S DownieDepartment of Chiropractic, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe assessment of spinal stiffness by manual palpation in clinical settings has demonstrated both poor accuracy and reliability. More recently, mechanical methods for assessment of spinal stiffness have demonstrated superior accuracy and reliability. However, mechanical methods of spinal stiffness assessment can be expensive, time consuming and/or unsuited to clinical practice. While a new device has been designed to address these issues (VerteTrack), its benchtop performance remains unknown.

aimTo measure the bench-top performance of VerteTrack.

methodsA series of laboratory-based experiments were conducted in February 2018 to investigate the accuracy (precision and bias) of load and displacement measurements obtained by VerteTrack and then were compared against an appropriate reference standard. Measurements of both multiple-level continuous assessment (multiple spinal levels measured), and single-level assessment (single spinal level measured) were performed on a viscoelastic foam medium (AIREX® balance beam, Switzerland) and the resulting stiffness calculated.

resultsVerteTrack demonstrated high precision at all loads and displacements. There was minimal systematic measurement bias identified for applied versus reference load (mean bias = - 0.123 N; 95%CI - 0.182 to 0.428 N, p < .001), and no systematic measurement bias for measured versus reference displacement (mean difference = 0.02 mm; 95%CI - 0.09 to 0.14 mm, p < .001). The magnitude of stiffness obtained during multiple-level continuous assessment was on average 0.25 N/mm (2.79%) less than that for single-level assessment (95%CI - 0.67 to 0.17 N/mm, p < .001).

conclusionsVerteTrack demonstrated high accuracy (high precision, low bias) under bench-top conditions. The difference in stiffness found between multiple versus single spinal levels should be considered in the research context, but is unlikely to be clinically relevant. The results of this study demonstrate that VerteTrack may be suitable for both single and multi-level spinal stiffness measurements in-vivo.

Indexed as

Biomechanical PhenomenaHumansManipulation, SpinalPhysical ExaminationReproducibility of ResultsSpineMechanical spinal stiffness deviceSpinal stiffnessSpinal stiffness assessmentVerteTrack and instrumented spinal stiffness measurements

Identifiers

PMID32807186
PMCPMC7433107

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.