ArticleScientific reports2022
Comparison of three validated systems to analyse spinal shape and motion.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spinal mobility and paraspinal muscle degeneration: a cross-sectional analysis from the Berlin Back Study.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 · 2026Article
- Anti-directional segmental motion during flexion and extension in the adolescent thoracolumbar spine: a normative study of 166 participants.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 · 2026Article
- Assessing the association between degenerative disc disease and spinal mobility.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 · 2025Article
- Comprehensive Analysis of Chronic Low Back Pain: Morphological and Functional Impairments, Physical Activity Patterns, and Epidemiology in a German Population-Based Cross-Sectional Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Answer to the Letter to the Editor of M. Hamza, et al. concerning "Association between lumbar paraspinal muscle activities and quality in chronic low back pain: a cross-sectional analysis" by Zhang T, Firouzabadi A, Becker L, et al. (Eur Spine J [2025]: doi: 10.1007/s00586-025-08727-x).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 · 2025Article
- Integrating multidimensional data analytics for precision diagnosis of chronic low back pain.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Schober test is not a valid assessment tool for lumbar mobility.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Initial study on an expert system for spine diseases screening using inertial measurement unit.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Spinal alignment measurement with Kinect sensor is valid for thoracic kyphosis but not for lumbar lordosis.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Article
- Thermography and rasterstereography as a combined infrared method to assess the posture of healthy individuals.Scientific reports · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The assessment of spinal shape and mobility is of great importance for long-term therapy evaluation. As frequent radiation should be avoided, especially in children, non-invasive measurements have gained increasing importance. Their comparability between each other however stays elusive. Three non-invasive measurement tools have been compared to each other: Idiag M360, raster stereography and Epionics SPINE. 30 volunteers (15 females/15 males) have each been assessed by each system, investigating lumbar lordosis, thoracic kyphosis and spinal range-of-motion in the sagittal plane. Lumbar lordosis differed significantly (p < 0.001) between measurement devices but correlated significant to each other (Pearson's r 0.5-0.6). Regarding thoracic kyphosis no significant difference and a high correlation (r = 0.8) could be shown between Idiag M360 and raster stereography. For lumbar mobility resulting measurements differed significantly and correlated only moderate between Idiag M360 and Epionics SPINE. Although the different measurement systems are moderate to high correlated to each other, their absolute agreement is limited. This might be explained by differences in their angle definition for lordotic and kyphotic angle, their measurement placement, or their capturing of mobility (static vs. dynamic assessment). Therefore, for long-term evaluation of the back profile, inter-modal comparison of values between different non-invasive devices should be avoided.
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.