ArticleHeliyon2024
Biomechanical analysis of spinal misalignment during Vehicular extrication maneuvers performed by professional rescue teams.
Article in Heliyon, 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.
- Inertial Sensor-Based Analysis of Cervical and Upper-Thoracic Motion During Extrication: SNAIDSensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Improving operational preparedness for armored vehicle casualty rescue: effectiveness of simulation-based training with a novel extrication device.Frontiers in public health · 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
Objective: To compare spinal misalignment and execution time of 3 rescue maneuvers for casualties in traffic accidents. Materials and methods: Biomechanical analysis using inertial sensors to measure the range of spinal misalignment and execution time of 3 maneuvers: 1) standard manual rescue (SMR); 2) rapid extrication device (RED); 3) extrication device (ED). The sample consisted of 117 rescue professionals (firefighters) from 14 Autonomous Communities in Spain. The total range of motion and the execution time of maneuvers were compared using ANOVA. Results: The highest range of cervical flexion-extension movement was recorded with RED (30° ± 9°). There were no statistically significant differences between SMR (21° ± 9°) and ED (21° ± 10°). In dorsal flexion-extension, the highest range of movement was with RED (36° ± 10°), followed by ED (30° ± 7°), with the lowest found for SMR (26° ± 11°). RED presented the least restriction of cervical (p < 0.001) and dorsal movement (p < 0.001). The quickest maneuver was SMR (average of 55″), followed by RED (average of 92″), with a considerable difference using ED (average of 225″) (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The standard manual rescue maneuver (SMR) generated the smallest range of spinal movement and also required the shortest execution time.
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.