ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Subjective and Objective Assessment of the Preferred Rotational Cervical Spine Position in Infants with an Upper Cervical Spine Dysfunction: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04981782 (Passive Cervical Range of Motion in Infants With and Without Torticollis, Before, During and After Chiropractic Treatment), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Passive Cervical Range of Motion in Infants With and Without Torticollis, Before, During and After Chiropractic Treatment
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to assess (1) the awareness of parents regarding the cervical rotation preference of their infant and the agreement of the parent, clinician and objective assessments, and (2) the test-retest reliability for objective (measured) rotation, lateral flexion and combined flexion-rotation.
methodsThis was a cross-sectional study including 69 infants aged three to six months with upper cervical spine dysfunction, without general health issues or specific cervical spine impairments. No treatment was applied. The primary outcomes were parent and clinician assessments of cervical spine rotation preference. The secondary outcome was the cervical range of motion measured by inertial measurement units (IMUs) at two different timepoints. Spearman correlation was performed for the parent, clinician and objective assessments. IMU data were dichotomized into the preferred and unpreferred sides, and test-retest reliability was assessed (ICC).
resultsThe mean age of infants was 145 days ± 29.1 days, birth length 49.40 cm ± 2.7 cm, birth weight 3328 g ± 530.9 g and 24 were female. In total, 33 infants were assessed by their parents as right-preferred, 30 as left-preferred and 6 as having no preference. The clinician assessed 38 infants as right-preferred and 31 as left-preferred. The correlation between parents and the clinician was r
conclusionsClinicians can use the parents' assessment of cervical spine rotation preference as a foundation for their clinical examination. IMU measurements are difficult in infants, possibly due to their lack of cooperation during measurements. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: clinicaltrails.gov (NCT04981782).
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.