ArticleTurkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation2020
The 'Cross-Legged Foetal Sitting Neuraxial Position': Is it Beneficial?-A Prospective Randomised Clinical Trial Via Ultrasonography.
Article in Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation, 2020. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- MRI Evaluation of Paraspinal Muscle Thickness and Interspinous Gap at the Lumbar Level: A Retrospective Cross-sectional Study.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Comparison of Two Different Positions for Ultrasound-Guided Intervertebral Distance Evaluation.Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation · 2023Article
- Comparison of neuraxial acoustic target window of the spine among rider sitting, cross leg, hamstring stretch, and classical sitting position: An observational study.Journal of anaesthesiology, clinical pharmacologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe primary aim of the present study was to compare the 'cross-legged foetal sitting position' (CFSP) with the 'sitting foetal position' (SFP) sonographically. The secondary aim was to compare their comfort.
methodsA randomised, consecutive controlled, single-blinded trial was performed in Yeditepe University. A total of 50 healthy volunteers were included in the study. Exclusion criteria were body mass index (BMI) >40 kg m-2, lumbar hernia, scoliosis, history of spine surgery, lower back pain or trauma, especially pelvic or knee problems related to arthropathy and not able to do one/both of the two position techniques. The two positioning techniques were evaluated by ultrasonography (USG) and 5-point Numerical Rating Scale (5-NRS) patient satisfaction of comfort questionnaire. Seven outcomes via USG were evaluated, subcutaneous tissue (ST), skin to spinous process (S-SP), transverse diameters of right and left paraspinal muscles (RPM and LPM), interspinous gap opening (ISGO), mean of bilateral paraspinal muscle (MPM) and CFSP-SFP change (CFSP-SFP). Stretcher comfort, position comfort, lumbar comfort (LC) and abdominal comfort (AC) were evaluated by participants with the 5-NRS.
resultsIn the CFSP, the mean ST and S-SP were significantly (p<0.0001) shorter, and LPM, RPM and MPM were significantly (p<0.0001) wider. The mean ISGO in the CFSP was significantly (p<0.0001) broader. The CFSP was significantly more comfortable than the SFP according to the LC (p=0.02). Only ISGO was found to be significantly broader in the male participant group (p=0.01) and in the BMI ≥25 group (p=0.02) according to CFSP-SFP.
conclusionConsidering all ultrasonographic anatomical measurements and according to the 5-NRS related to LC, the CFSP appears to be more advantageous than the SFP as a neuraxial positioning technique.
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.