Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33275168›Full record

ArticleEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2021

Experimental evaluation of precision and accuracy of RSA in the lumbar spine.

Marie Christina Keller, Christof Hurschler, Michael Schwarze

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in 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, 2021. 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
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Computational modelling of the scoliotic spine: A literature review.International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering · 2021
    Review
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marie Christina KellerLaboratory for Biomechanics and Biomaterials, Hannover Medical School, Anna-von-Borries-Str. 1-7, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Christof HurschlerLaboratory for Biomechanics and Biomaterials, Hannover Medical School, Anna-von-Borries-Str. 1-7, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Michael SchwarzeLaboratory for Biomechanics and Biomaterials, Hannover Medical School, Anna-von-Borries-Str. 1-7, 30625, Hannover, Germany. Schwarze.michael@mh-hannover.de.ORCID 0000-0001-5059-8029
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeRoentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis is a technique to make accurate assessments of the relative position and orientation of bone structures and implants in vivo. While the precision and accuracy of stereophotogrammetry for hip and knee arthroplasty is well documented, there is insufficient knowledge of the technique's precision and, especially accuracy when applied to rotational movements in the spinal region.

methodsThe motion of one cadaver lumbar spine segment (L3/L4) was analyzed in flexion-extension, lateral bending and internal rotation. The specific aim of this study was to examine the precision and accuracy of stereophotogrammetry in a controlled in vitro setting, taking the surrounding soft tissue into account. The second objective of this study was to investigate the effect of different focal spot values of X-ray tubes.

resultsOverall, the precision of flexion-extension measurements was found to be better when using a 0.6 mm focal spot value rather than 1.2 mm (± 0.056° and ± 0.153°; respectively), and accuracy was also slightly better for the 0.6 mm focal spot value compared to 1.2 mm (- 0.137° and - 0.170°; respectively). The best values for precision and accuracy were obtained in lateral bending for both 0.6 mm and 1.2 mm focal spot values (precision: ± 0.019° and ± 0.015°, respectively; accuracy: - 0.041° and - 0.035°).

conclusionIn summary, the results suggest stereophotogrammetry to be a highly precise method to analyze motion of the lumbar spine. Since precision and accuracy are better than 0.2° for both focal spot values, the choice between these is of minor clinical relevance.

Indexed as

Lumbar VertebraeLumbosacral RegionBiomechanical PhenomenaHumansRange of Motion, ArticularRotationIn-vitroLumbar spineRSAValidation

Identifiers

PMID33275168
OpenAlexW3107571196

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.