Trial reportPloS one2024
Static palpation ain't easy: Evaluating palpation precision using a topographical map of the lumbar spine as a reference.
Trial report in PloS one, 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.
- Article
- A Fully Automated Deep Learning Pipeline for Anatomical Landmark Localization on Three-Dimensional Pelvic Surface Scans.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionClinicians commonly use manual therapy to treat low back pain by palpating the spine to identify the spinous processes. This study aims to evaluate the ability of experienced clinicians to consistently locate the spinous processes from S1 to T12 through palpation. The results will be compared to topographical data representing the lumbar lordosis at baseline and four follow-up time points. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn a prior prospective randomized trial, experienced clinicians used palpation to locate the lumbar spinous processes (S1-T12) and then digitized these locations in three-dimensional space. The same digitizing equipment was then used to continuously collect three-dimensional position data of a wheel that rolled along the back's surface through a trajectory that connected the previously digitized locations of the spinous processes. This process was repeated at 4 days, 1, 4, and 12 weeks. The resulting lordosis trajectories were plotted and aligned using the most anterior point in the lordosis to compare the locations of the spinous processes identified in different trials. This way, spinous palpation points could be compared to surface topography over time. Intra- and interrater reliability and agreement were estimated using intraclass correlations of agreement and Bland-Altman limits of agreement.
resultsFive clinicians palpated a total of 119 participants. The results showed a large degree of variation in precision estimates, with a mean total value of 13 mm (95%CI = 11;15). This precision error was consistent across all time points. The smallest precision error was found at L5, followed by S1 File, after which the error increased superiorly. Intra- and interrater reliability was poor to moderate.
conclusionsComparison of palpation results to a topographic standard representing the lumbar lordosis is a new approach for evaluating palpation. Our results confirm the results of prior studies that find palpation of lumbar spinous processes imprecise, even for experienced clinicians.
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.