ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
The effect of cervical spine flexion-extension motion on odontoid parameters.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Odontoid parameters in subjects with and without degenerative cervical spondylosis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the stability of odontoid parameters on flexion-extension motion and to validate the accuracy of the physiological cervical lordosis (CL) predictive formula across different cervical positions.
methodsStandard cervical spine lateral radiographs in neutral, flexion, and extension positions were collected to measure odontoid incidence (OI), odontoid tilt (OT), C2 slope (C2S), CL, T1 slope (T1S), and T1S minus CL (T1S-CL). Friedman's test was used to assess the differences in parameters among the three cervical spine positions. The predictive performance of the formula CL = 0.36× OI - 0.67 × OT - 0.69 × T1S was assessed and validated using the Pearson correlation coefficient (r), coefficient of determination (R²), mean squared error (MSE), and mean absolute error (MAE).
resultsNo significant differences were found for OI and T1S among the three different cervical spine positions (p = 0.162 and p = 0.186, respectively). There was a strong, significant positive correlation between the predicted value and actual value of physiological CL at three cervical positions (neutral, flexion, and extension). The predictions for the neutral position were the most accurate, with statistical measures of r = 0.85 (p < 0.01), R²=0.82, MAE = 4.28, and MSE = 27.77.
conclusionOI is a stable and reliable anatomic parameter, not affected by cervical spine flexion-extension motion. OI can serve as a supplementary parameter for evaluating cervical sagittal balance and compensatory ability. The formula CL = 0.36×OI - 0.67×OT - 0.69×T1S provides the best predictions for physiological CL in the neutral position.
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.