ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Forced Straightening of the Back Does Not Improve Body Shape.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sagittal Posture Parameters of the Spine and Exposure to Awkward Postures in Mattress Manufacture Workers: An Analytical Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2026Article
- The Use of Sternum and Sacrum Angles in the Assessment of Sitting Posture in Adolescents: A Cross-Sectional Comparison of Cohorts Assessed Before and After the COVID-19 Pandemic.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSitting for a long time causes various postural problems, such as slump sitting. It has been reported that employing a corrected sitting position while lifting the sternum is effective in improving this form of posture. We investigated how a corrected sitting posture with the lifting of the sternum is different from a forced position that is applied through the command and passive positions. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe postural angle of 270 subjects aged 19-23 years was measured in the passive, forced, and corrected positions using a Saunders inclinometer and a Formetric 4D system.
resultsAs a result, the corrected position had a small range (min-max) at all angles, but the forced position and passive position had a large range (min-max). The lumbar lordosis angle in the corrected position showed positive values throughout its range (min-max), while the other groups showed negative values, which indicates the kyphotic position of the lumbar section. In addition, the percentage error in the corrected position was small, but it presented high values in the other groups. When comparing the average angles between the groups, there were substantial changes observed between the corrected position and the other groups. It was found that the corrected position with the sternum lifted, which is applied to improve slump sitting in the clinical environment, exhibited an angle that differed from that of the forced position and the passive position.
conclusionsOur results suggest that a forced position on the command "scapular retraction" does not meet the clinical assumptions of posture correction, in contrast to the corrected position with the lifting of the sternum for the improvement of slump sitting. The accurate correction of the position of the sternum and sacrum improves the position of the spine in the sagittal plane, enabling physiological values for the kyphosis and lordosis angle parameters to be obtained. This approach combines the ease of execution and precision of the effect. The fact that this method does not require complex tools to accurately correct the body encourages the implementation of this solution in clinical practice.
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.