Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35459026›Full record

SynthesisSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Analysis of the Active Measurement Systems of the Thoracic Range of Movements of the Spine: A Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis.

Pablo Esteban-González, Eleuterio A Sánchez-Romero, Jorge Hugo Villafañe

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Pablo Esteban-GonzálezDepartment of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Universidad Europea de Madrid, 28670 Vil-laviciosa de Odón, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2769-4260
Eleuterio A Sánchez-RomeroDepartment of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Sport Sciences, Universidad Europea de Madrid, 28670 Vil-laviciosa de Odón, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-0254-6501
Jorge Hugo VillafañeIRCCS Fondazione Don Carlo Gnocchi, Piazzale Morandi 6, 20141 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3239-7626

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Objective: to analyze current active noninvasive measurement systems of the thoracic range of movements of the spine. (2) Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed that included observational or clinical trial studies published in English or Spanish, whose subjects were healthy human males or females ≥18 years of age with reported measurements of thoracic range of motion measured with an active system in either flexion, extension, lateral bending, or axial rotation. All studies that passed the screening had a low risk of bias and good methodological results, according to the PEDro and MINORS scales. The mean values and 95% confidence interval of the reported measures were calculated for different types of device groups. To calculate the differences between the type of device measures, studies were pooled for different types of device groups using Review Manager software. (3) Results: 48 studies were included in the review; all had scores higher than 7.5 over 10 on the PEDro and MINORs methodological rating scales, collecting a total of 2365 healthy subjects, 1053 males and 1312 females; they were 39.24 ± 20.64 years old and had 24.44 ± 3.81 kg/m

Indexed as

MovementSpineAdolescentAdultBiomechanical PhenomenaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRange of Motion, ArticularRotationYoung Adultdevicemobilitymovementrange of motionrange of movementspinesystemthoracictool

Identifiers

PMID35459026
PMCPMC9026805

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.