Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35904702›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of biomedical engineering2022

In Silico Meta-Analysis of Boundary Conditions for Experimental Tests on the Lumbar Spine.

Simone Borrelli, Giovanni Putame, Giulia Pascoletti, Mara Terzini, Elisabetta M Zanetti

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

5 authors.

Simone BorrelliDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (DIMEAS), Politecnico di Torino, C.so Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129, Turin, Italy.
Giovanni PutameDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (DIMEAS), Politecnico di Torino, C.so Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129, Turin, Italy.
Giulia PascolettiDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (DIMEAS), Politecnico di Torino, C.so Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129, Turin, Italy. giulia.pascoletti@polito.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4840-4165
Mara TerziniDepartment of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (DIMEAS), Politecnico di Torino, C.so Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129, Turin, Italy.
Elisabetta M ZanettiDepartment of Engineering, University of Perugia, Via G. Duranti 92, 06125, Perugia, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The study of the spine range of motion under given external load has been the object of many studies in literature, finalised to a better understanding of the spine biomechanics, its physiology, eventual pathologic conditions and possible rehabilitation strategies. However, the huge amount of experimental work performed so far cannot be straightforwardly analysed due to significant differences among loading set-ups. This work performs a meta-analysis of various boundary conditions in literature, focusing on the flexion/extension behaviour of the lumbar spine. The comparison among range of motions is performed virtually through a validated multibody model. Results clearly illustrated the effect of various boundary conditions which can be met in literature, so justifying differences of biomechanical behaviours reported by authors implementing different set-up: for example, a higher value of the follower load can indeed result in a stiffer behaviour; the application of force producing spurious moments results in an apparently more deformable behaviour, however the respective effects change at various segments along the spine due to its natural curvature. These outcomes are reported not only in qualitative, but also in quantitative terms. The numerical approach here followed to perform the meta-analysis is original and it proved to be effective thanks to the bypass of the natural variability among specimens which might completely or partially hinder the effect of some boundary conditions. In addition, it can provide very complete information since the behaviour of each functional spinal unit can be recorded. On the whole, the work provided an extensive review of lumbar spine loading in flexion/extension.

Indexed as

Lumbar VertebraeLumbosacral RegionBiomechanical PhenomenaMotionRange of Motion, ArticularBiomechanicsFollower loadLumbar spineMechanical testsMultibodyROM

Identifiers

PMID35904702
PMCPMC9474587

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.