ArticleJournal of oral rehabilitation2021
Measuring the difference in natural head position between the standing and sitting positions using an inertial measurement unit.
Article in Journal of oral rehabilitation, 2021. 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Head Posture in Wheelchair-Bound Individuals and Its Relation to Malocclusion: A Proof-of-Concept Study.Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2026Article
- One-Dimensional Motion Representation for Standing/Sitting and Their Transitions.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Correlation Analysis of Nasal Septum Deviation and Results of AI-Driven Automated 3D Cephalometric Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Evaluation of natural head position over five minutes: A comparison between an instantaneous and a five-minute analysis with an inertial measurement unit.Journal of oral rehabilitation · 2022Article
- Recording Natural Head Position Using Cone Beam Computerized Tomography.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Measuring the difference in natural head position between the standing and sitting positions using an inertial measurement unit.Journal of oral rehabilitation · 2021Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe purpose of this study was to compare the natural head position (NHP) in the sitting position to the NHP in a standing position using inertial measurement unit (IMU) and lateral photographs. MATIERIALS &
methodsTwenty healthy young adult volunteers were asked to look at a mirror located at 1 metre in front of their eyes while being recorded with the IMU system. Lateral photographs were also taken. This procedure was undertaken for the standing and sitting positions, on two separate occasions within a one-week interval.
resultsA strong correlation was found between the IMU system and the lateral photographs (r > .99) with regard to the pitch axis, the absolute mean difference was 0.4 ± 0.5 (p = .99) for both standing and sitting positions. We found that in the sitting position the head was elevated by 2.5 ± 2.4 (p < .05) more than in the standing position, but no significant differences were observed for the other two axes (roll and yaw).
conclusionThe IMU system is comparable to lateral photographs for pitch assessment. Except for a slight elevation of the head in the sitting position, no clinical differences were observed for the NHP when comparing the standing and sitting positions.
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.