ReviewJournal of anatomy2023
Biomechanical in vitro evaluation of the kangaroo spine in comparison with human spinal data.
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.
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A rapid method for the preparation of anFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- A novel spine tester TO GO.JOR spine · 2024Article
- Biomechanical in vitro evaluation of the kangaroo spine in comparison with human spinal data.Journal of anatomy · 2023Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.