ReviewHeliyon2024
Sagittal balance in sitting and standing positions: A systematic review of radiographic measures.
Review in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sagittal vertical axis, spinosacral angle, T1 pelvic angle, and spinopelvic angle: which parameters can predict improvement in quality of life after surgical correction of ankylosing spondylitis?Spine deformity · 2026Article
- Temporal Evolution and Stationary Point Mechanisms of Pelvic Characteristic Angles Throughout the Sit-to-Stand Cycle.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Article
- Impact of car seat recline angle on global spinal alignment and seat belt positioning: a prospective observational study in Japan.Asian spine journal · 2026Article
- Analysis of sagittal alignment changes in the spine-pelvis joint in sitting and standing positions after long- or short-segment fixation to the pelvis for lumbar degenerative diseases.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sagittal imbalance can be caused by various etiologies and is among the most important indicators of spinal deformity. Sagittal balance can be restored through surgical intervention based on several radiographic measures. The purpose of this study is to review the normal parameters in the sitting position, which are not well understood and could have significant implications for non-ambulatory patients. Methods: A systematic review was performed adhering to PRISMA Guidelines. Using R-software, the weighted means and 95% confidence intervals of the radiographic findings were calculated using a random effect model and significance testing using unpaired t-tests. Results: 10 articles with a total of 1066 subjects reported radiographic measures of subjects with no spinal deformity in the sitting and standing position. In the healthy individual, standing sagittal vertical axis -16.8°was significantly less than sitting 28.4° (p < 0.0001), while standing lumbar lordosis 43.3°is significantly greater than sitting 21.3° (p < 0.0001). Thoracic kyphosis was not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.368). Standing sacral slope 34.3° was significantly greater than sitting 19.5° (p < 0.0001) and standing pelvic tilt 14.0° was significantly less than sitting 33.9° (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: There are key differences between standing and sitting postures, which could lead to undue stress on surgical implants and poor outcomes, especially for non-ambulatory populations. There is a need for more studies reporting sitting and standing radiographic measures in different postures and spinal conditions.
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.