ArticleThe Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association2024
Intra-observer reliability study of lumbar segmental measurements utilizing ultrasonography.
Article in The Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association, 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.
- Evaluation of lumbar segmental motion using ultrasound imaging following common joint mobilization techniques.The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2025Trial
- Ultrasound measurements of lumbar spinous process movement during flexion distraction manipulation: a preliminary descriptive cross-sectional study with healthy participants.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Spinal Manipulative Therapy (SMT) benefits LBP patients, but its mechanism is not well documented. One hypothesis indicates that SMT restores interspinal movements. Ultrasound measurement (UM) of spinous process separation (SPS) assesses the intersegmental movements. Methods: We used the test-retest reliability of UM between the L3, L4, L5, and S1 spinous processes on fifteen asymptomatic volunteers while lying prone on a chiropractic table. The participants then walked around for over 5 minutes, and ultrasound images were reperformed prone. UM identified the tips of the spinous processes and distances between L3-L4, L4-L5, and L5-S1. Reliability was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: ICC values of SPS measurements were 0.982 for L3-L4, 0.992 for L4-L5, and 0.997 for L5-S1. Rootmean square difference between the two measures were 0.35mm for L5-S1, 0.36mm for L4-L5, and 0.57mm for L3-L4. Conclusions: This study found UM to be reliable in measuring interspinous distance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38840962PMC11149686What 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.