ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2023
Comparison of three methods for measuring C0-1 angles and C0-2 angles.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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.
- Predictive value of C0-C2 and C1-C2 angles for postoperative lower cervical alignment following posterior atlantoaxial fixation and fusion: a retrospective single-center study.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- Cervical sagittal alignment differences according to scapular rotational posture: A retrospective radiographic study.Medicine · 2026Article
- Sagittal alignment patterns in forward head posture: an EOS-based head-to-pelvis correlation analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe mutual compensatory relationship between the upper cervical sagittal alignment and the lower cervical sagittal alignment has been repeatedly reported. However, the evaluation of the upper cervical sagittal parameters are varied in previous studies. This retrospective study was performed to compare three methods for measuring the upper cervical sagittal parameters.
methodsA total of 263 individuals with standing neutral lateral cervical radiographs were included in this study. The Frankfort horizontal line (FHL), foramen magnum line (FML), and McGregor line (ML) were separately used as the reference lines for measuring the C0-1 angle and C0-2 angle. Intraclass correlation (ICC) values were used to compare the consistency and repeatability of the three methods. Pearson's correlation analysis was used to analyze the correlation between the sagittal parameters of the upper and lower cervical spine.
resultsThe interobserver and intraobserver ICC values obtained from using the ML to measure the C0-1 angle and C0-2 angle were both higher than those obtained from using the FML or FHL. The C0-1 angle and C0-2 angle measured by the three methods were negatively correlated with the C2-7 angle. The upper sagittal parameters measured by the FHL were the most correlated with the C2-7 angle. The correlation between the C0-1 angle measured by the three methods and the C0-2 angle measured with the FHL or ML and the C2-7 angle increased with aging.
conclusionUse of the ML to measure the C0-1 angle and C0-2 angle has higher reliability. Use of the FHL to measure the sagittal alignment of the upper cervical spine is more suitable for evaluating the compensation mechanism between the upper and the lower cervical spine.
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.