Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36929138›Full record

ReviewJournal of anatomy2023

Biomechanical in vitro evaluation of the kangaroo spine in comparison with human spinal data.

Hans-Joachim Wilke, Volker Michael Betz, Annette Kienle

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of anatomy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A rapid method for the preparation of anFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hans-Joachim WilkeInstitute of Orthopaedic Research and Biomechanics, Trauma Research Centre Ulm, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6007-8844
Volker Michael BetzInstitute of Orthopaedic Research and Biomechanics, Trauma Research Centre Ulm, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Annette KienleSpineServ GmbH & Co. KG, Ulm, Germany.
Universität Ulm · DE

Funding

AO Foundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

On the basis of the kangaroo's pseudo-biped locomotion and its upright position, it could be assumed that the kangaroo might be an interesting model for spine research and that it may serve as a reasonable surrogate model for biomechanical in vitro tests. The purpose of this in vitro study was to provide biomechanical properties of the kangaroo spine and compare them with human spinal data from the literature. In addition, references to already published kangaroo anatomical spinal parameters will be discussed. Thirteen kangaroo spines from C4 to S4 were sectioned into single-motion segments. The specimens were tested by a spine tester under pure moments. The range of motion and neutral zone of each segment were determined in flexion and extension, right and left lateral bending and left and right axial rotation. Overall, we found greater flexibility in the kangaroo spine compared to the human spine. Similarities were only found in the cervical, lower thoracic and lumbar spinal regions. The range of motion of the kangaroo and human spines displayed comparable trends in the cervical (C4-C7), lower thoracic and lumbar regions independent of the motion plane. In the upper and middle thoracic regions, the flexibility of the kangaroo spine was considerably larger. These results suggested that the kangaroo specimens could be considered to be a surrogate, but only in particular cases, for biomechanical in vitro tests.

Indexed as

MacropodidaeSpineAnimalsBiomechanical PhenomenaHumansNeckRange of Motion, ArticularRotationanatomyanimal modelbiomechanicsflexibilitykangaroorange of motionspine

Identifiers

PMID36929138
PMCPMC10273331
OpenAlexW4327678310

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.