ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Instrumented Pre-Hospital Care Simulation Mannequin for Use in Spinal Motion Restrictions Scenarios: Validation of Cervical and Lumbar Motion Assessment.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA mid-fidelity simulation mannequin, equipped with an instrumented cervical and lumbar spine, was developed to investigate best practices and train healthcare professionals in applying spinal motion restrictions (SMRs) during the early mobilization and transfer of accident victims with suspected spine injury. The study objectives are to (1) examine accuracy of the cervical and lumbar motions measured with the mannequin; and (2) confirm that the speed of motion has no bearing on this accuracy.
methodsAccuracy was evaluated by concurrently comparing the orientation data obtained with the mannequin with that from an optoelectronic system. The mannequin's head and pelvis were moved in all anatomical planes of motion at different speeds.
resultsAccuracy, assessed by root-mean-square error, varied between 0.7° and 1.5° in all anatomical planes of motion. Bland-Altman analysis revealed a bias ranging from -0.7° to 0.6°, with the absolute limit of agreement remaining below 3.5°. The minimal detectable change varied between 1.3° and 2.6°. Motion speed demonstrated no impact on accuracy.
conclusionsThe results of this validation study confirm the mannequin's potential to provide accurate measurements of cervical and lumbar motion during simulation scenarios for training and research on the application of SMR.
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.