ArticleJOR spine2022
Disc geometry measurement methods affect reported compressive mechanics by up to 65.
Article in JOR spine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Needle-induced cavitation: A method to probe the local mechanics of brain tissue.Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials · 2024Article
- Can axial loading restore in vivo disc geometry, opening pressure, and T2 relaxation time?JOR spine · 2024Article
- Disc geometry measurement methods affect reported compressive mechanics by up to 65.JOR spine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mechanical testing is a valuable tool for assessing intervertebral disc health, but the wide range of testing protocols makes it difficult to compare results from different studies. Normalizing mechanical properties by disc geometry allows for such comparisons, but there is little consistency in the methods by which disc geometry is measured. As such, we hypothesized that methods used to measure disc geometry would impact reported mechanical properties. Disc height and area were measured using computed tomography (CT), digital calipers, and ImageJ to yield three different measurements for disc height and six for disc area. Disc heights measured by digital calipers ex situ were >30% less than disc heights measured in situ by CT, and disc areas measured ex situ using ImageJ were >30% larger than those measured by CT. This significantly affected reported mechanical properties, leading to a 65% reduction in normalized compressive stiffness in the most extreme case. Though we cannot quantitatively correct between methods, results presented in this study suggest that disc geometry measurement methods have a significant impact on normalized mechanical properties and should be accounted for when comparing results.
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.