Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33202728›Full record

ReviewBiology2020

Development of the Biomechanical Technologies for the Modeling of Major Segments of the Human Body: Linking the Past with the Present.

Antonio Cicchella

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

Antonio CicchellaDepartment for Quality of Life Studies, University of Bologna, 40127 Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0851-9312

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The knowledge of human body proportions and segmental properties of limbs, head and trunk is of fundamental importance in biomechanical research. Given that many methods are employed, it is important to know which ones are currently available, which data on human body masses, lengths, center of mass (COM) location, weights and moment of inertia (MOI) are available and which methods are most suitable for specific research purposes. Graphical, optical, x-ray and derived techniques, MRI, laser, thermography, has been employed for in-vivo measurement, while direct measurements involve cadaveric studies with dissection and various methods of acquiring shape and size of body segments. The present review examines the literature concerning human body segments' properties for biomechanical purposes starting with a historical examination. It emerges that data obtained in studies on cadaveric specimens are still accurate in comparison to more recent technologies, whilst technological tools currently available are manifolds, each one with proper advantages and disadvantages. Classical studies were focused mainly on white men, while in recent years, the available data on body segments have been extended to children, women, and other races. Additionally, data on special populations (obese, pregnant women) are starting to appear in the scientific literature.

Indexed as

anthropometrybiomechanical modelingbody dimensionsbody scanningbody segments inertial parametersbody sizecenter of mass determinationhuman body segments

Identifiers

PMID33202728
PMCPMC7696826

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.