ArticleScientific reports2024
Reproduction of forearm rotation dynamic using intensity-based biplane 2D-3D registration matching method.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to reproduce and analyse the in vivo dynamic rotational motion of the forearm and to clarify forearm motion involvement and the anatomical function of the interosseous membrane (IOM). The dynamic forearm rotational motion of the radius and ulna was analysed in vivo using a novel image-matching method based on fluoroscopic and computed tomography images for intensity-based biplane two-dimensional-three-dimensional registration. Twenty upper limbs from 10 healthy volunteers were included in this study. The mean range of forearm rotation was 150 ± 26° for dominant hands and 151 ± 18° for non-dominant hands, with no significant difference observed between the two. The radius was most proximal to the maximum pronation relative to the ulna, moved distally toward 60% of the rotation range from maximum pronation, and again proximally toward supination. The mean axial translation of the radius relative to the ulna during forearm rotation was 1.8 ± 0.8 and 1.8 ± 0.9 mm for dominant and non-dominant hands, respectively. The lengths of the IOM components, excluding the central band (CB), changed rotation. The transverse CB length was maximal at approximately 50% of the rotation range from maximum pronation. Summarily, this study describes a detailed method for evaluating in vivo dynamic forearm motion and provides valuable insights into forearm kinematics and IOM function.
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.