ArticleCureus2024
Conceptual Framework of Upper Cross Syndrome: A Delphi Study.
Article in Cureus, 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUpper cross syndrome (UCS) is one of the most common postural dysfunctions due to prolonged flexed attitude. Good posture plays an important role in maintaining musculoskeletal balance and protecting it from further injury. Conducting research on the conceptual framework will help clinicians to identify and plan treatment strategies for the correction of this syndrome and prevent secondary complications. Thus, the aim of this study was to develop a conceptual framework for UCS. METHODS AND MATERIAL: The Delphi method was used to conduct the study and develop a conceptual framework. A total of 30 multidisciplinary experts participated in the study, and a list of 41 items was finalized after an extensive literature review. A cover letter along with all the items was mailed to the experts to obtain their input. Three rounds of Delphi were conducted until a consensus was reached. The following parameters were used to determine consensus: moderate Kendall's coefficient of concordance (Kendall's W), agreement greater than 51.0%, interquartile range (IQR) below 1.5, and standard deviation (SD) below 1.
resultsBy the end of the third round, 37 items were finalized. The conceptual framework consisted of four items in postural alignment, eight items in muscular imbalance, 20 items in functional limitation, and five items in the psychosocial domain.
conclusionWe successfully developed a conceptual framework for UCS. Four domains, including postural alignment, muscular imbalance, functional limitation, and psychosocial, were identified. This will lead to a deeper comprehension of UCS, which will facilitate its early detection and treatment. The multidimensional approach of the study will provide a better scope for the clinicians to educate the patient about good posture, which not only will impact physical performance but also improve quality of life. The development of this framework will help to prevent, monitor the progress, and correct UCS.
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.