ArticleJOR spine2024
A novel spine tester TO GO.
Article in JOR spine, 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.
- Chondroitinase Versus Papain Digestion Leads to Different Outcome for In Vitro Simulation of Degenerated Discs.JOR spine · 2026Article
- Importance of a Systematic Intervertebral Motion Parametrization for in vivo Assessment of Spine Biomechanics.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Segmental asymmetry and multiplanar motion of the lumbar spine: Cadaveric insights into spinal pathologies.Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials · 2026Article
- A novel spine tester TO GO.JOR spine · 2024Article
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
Background: Often after large animal experiments in spinal research, the question arises-histology or biomechanics? While biomechanics are essential for informed decisions on the functionality of the therapy being studied, scientists often choose histological analysis alone. For biomechanical testing, for example, flexibility, specimens must be shipped to institutions with special testing equipment, as spine testers are complex and immobile. The specimens must usually be shipped frozen, and, thus, biological and histological investigations are not possible anymore. To allow both biomechanical and biological investigations with the same specimen and, thus, to reduce the number of required animals, the aim of the study was to develop a spine tester that can be shipped worldwide to test on-site. Methods: The "Spine Tester TO GO" was designed consisting of a frame with three motors that initiate pure moments and rotate the specimen in three motion planes. A load cell and an optical motion tracking system controlled the applied loads and measured range of motion (ROM) and neutral zone (NZ). As a proof of concept, the new machine was validated and compared under real experimental conditions with an existing testing machine already validated employing fresh bovine tail discs CY34 ( Results: The new spine tester measured reasonable ROM and NZ from hysteresis curves, and the ROM of the two testing machines formed a high coefficient of determination Conclusions: The spine tester TO GO now opens up new opportunities for on-site flexibility tests and contributes hereby to the 3R principle by limiting the number of experimental animals needed to obtain full characterization of spine units at the macroscopic, biomechanical, biochemical, and histological level.
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.