ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
Evaluation of Movement Restriction of Spinal Orthoses Using Inertial Measurement Units.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantitative assessment of thoracolumbosacral orthosis efficacy on the temporal features of gait using inertial measurement unit sensors.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Evaluating Interface Pressure Distribution and Range of Motion in a Mesh-Structure 3D-Printed Lumbar Brace.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Wearable sensor technologies for individuals with back pain: a scoping review.Pain management · 2025Article
- Wearable Devices in Scoliosis Treatment: A Scoping Review of Innovations and Challenges.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Association of physical activity and sedentary time with scoliosis screening positive in Chinese primary and secondary school students: a cohort study in Shanghai.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the frequent use of orthopedic braces or spine stabilizers in diseases such as kyphosis, lordosis, and scoliosis, as well as in the case of injuries and rehabilitation after surgeries, there is no clear evidence of their proper stabilization of the spine while carrying out daily activities. This study sought to assess the spine's mobility while wearing three different orthopedic braces while performing basic tasks. Ten healthy subjects were enrolled. Three Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) were attached superficially along the spine at approximate levels: cervical (C7), between thoracic (T8) and lumbar (L3), and sacrum. The angle between sensors was monitored to provide data on the sagittal profile. In addition, the displacement of the spine's longitudinal axis was measured (rotation). There are three types of orthopedic braces: the semi-rigid Hohmann corset, the Jewett brace, and the Thoracolumbar Fixed Spinal Orthosis (TLSO). Four tasks were monitored: standing, sitting, walking, and picking up an item from the floor with one hand. All braces provided a similar level of stability in both the sagittal plane and rotational axis while lifting an object. On the other hand, while walking and sitting, the TLSO was the only orthosis providing a statistically significant rigidity in the sagittal plane. When performing a more voluntary task, the measured rigidity of softer braces was significantly increased when compared with more involuntary tasks. A certain degree of motion restriction with spinal orthoses may come from the feedback pressure, which stimulates paraspinal muscles to contract and thus increases the overall rigidity of the trunk.
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.