ArticleClinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.)2025
Capturing the cervical spine shape: Angular measurements versus geometric morphometric methods.
Article in Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.), 2025. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Capturing the cervical spine shape: Angular measurements versus geometric morphometric methods.Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.) · 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The cervical spine manifests a wide shape variation. However, the traditional methods to evaluate the cervical spine curve were never tested against its actual shape. The study's main aim was to determine whether the shape classification of the cervical spine, based on traditional angular measurements, coincides with each other and with the shape captured by the 2D landmark-based geometric morphometric method. The study's second aim was to reveal the associations between the cervical spine shape and the demographic parameters, the head's position, and the spine's sagittal balance. CT scans of the cervical spine of 163 individuals were evaluated to achieve these goals. The shape was assessed by measuring the C2-C7 Cobb angle (CA), the C2-C7 posterior tangent angle (PTA), the curvedness of the arch, and by a 2D landmark-based geometric morphometric method. The position of the head and the sagittal balance of the spine were evaluated by measuring the foramen magnum-C2 Cobb angle (FMCA) and the T1 slope angle (T1SA), respectively. Based on the size of the angle measured, each individual was classified into one of the three cervical 'shape groups' (lordotic, straight, and kyphotic). We found that cervical lordosis was the dominant shape regardless of the measuring methods utilized (46.6%-54.6%), followed by straight neck (28.2%-30.1%), and kyphosis (15.3%-25.2%); however, about a third of the 163 individuals were classified into a different shape group using the CA and PTA methods. The cervical spine angle was sex-independent and age-dependent. The T1SA was significantly correlated with CA and PTA (r = 0.640 and r = 0.585, respectively; p < 0.001). In conclusion, the cervical spine shape evaluation is method-dependent and varies with age.
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.