ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Schober Test and Its Modifications Revisited-What Are We Actually Measuring? Computerized Tomography-Based Analysis.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this 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.
Effect of the Diaphragm Stretching Technique on Symptomatology in Young Adults With Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Randomized Controlled Trial
Thoracic Mobility Versus Hip Mobility Exercises to Core Stabilization in Lumbar Spondylitis
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- 4-Week Comparative Outcomes of Standard Physiotherapy, Balneotherapy Plus Physiotherapy and Dextrose Prolotherapy in Patients with Low Back Pain: A Non-Randomized Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Trial
- Serum Interleukin-8 Levels and Their Association with Anxiety and Functional Disability in Military Personnel with Chronic Low Back Pain.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Efficacy of Thiocolchicoside for Musculoskeletal Pain Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Lumbar Range of Motion Using the Wolfson Modified Schober Test.Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews · 2024Article
- Schober test is not a valid assessment tool for lumbar mobility.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveExamine Schober test's (ST), Modified ST (MST), and Modified-Modified ST (MMST) surface markers' accuracy in spanning lumbar L1-S1 motion segments and repeatability related to actual patient anatomy as measured on sagittal CT scans.
methodsThe study included 25 patients of varying heights, weights, and gender without prior spinal surgery or deformity. Researchers assessed patients' CT scans for ST, MST, and MMST skin levels of the measured cephalic and caudal endpoints.
resultsThe original ST failed to include at least one lumbar motion segment in all patients, omitting the L1-L2 motion segment in 17 patients and the L2-L3 in another eight. The additional cephalic length of the MST did not improve the inclusion of the actual L1-S1 components. The MMST measured 19 'patients' entire L1-S1 motion segments, reaching a 76% accuracy rate. WMST, measuring 16 cm (instead of MMST's 15 cm), improved the measurement significantly, measuring the L1-S1 motion segments in all cases (with 100% accuracy).
conclusionST and its modifications fail to span the L1-S1 motion segments and are thus prone to underestimating lumbar spine motion. This study shows that the WMST is much more accurate than previous modifications and is a better tool for evaluating lumbar spine motion.
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.