ArticleClinical spine surgery2026
Comparing Spinopelvic Angles and Magnification on Supine MRI With Standing Radiographs in Lumbar Spinal Stenosis.
Article in Clinical spine surgery, 2026. 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.
- Comparison of Anterior Spinal Bridging and Sagittal Spinal Parameters in Diffuse Idiopathic Skeletal Hyperostosis and Axial Spondylitis: A Multicenter Study.Spine surgery and related research · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
STUDY
designRadiologic cross-sectional study based on a prospective cohort study (level III).
objectiveInvestigate whether lumbar lordosis (LL) and sacral slope (SS) differ significantly on supine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) versus standing radiographs in nondeformity lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Secondly, to quantify the amount of magnification on standing lumbar radiographs. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Supine MRI is routinely performed when diagnosing LSS. Standing radiographs are often supplemented to measure spinopelvic angles. Little research has been done on whether LL and SS translate from standing radiographs to supine MRI. Previous studies have trended to significant changes in LL and SS; however, none have been performed exclusively in nondeformity LSS. MATERIALS AND
methodsReview of preoperative standing lateral lumbar radiographs and midsagittal T2-weighted supine lumbar MRI in 211 patients with LSS without concomitant degenerative spondylolisthesis, measuring LL (L1-S1), segmental lumbar lordosis (sLL) (L4-S1) and SS, in addition to the anteroposterior diameter and height of the L3 vertebral body. We conducted a reliability study and performed a Pearson's correlation analysis. Data was presented in Bland-Altman plots.
resultsInterobserver reliability was good to excellent, with ICC ranging from 0.77 to 0.94 for all parameters. Statistically significant differences were observed in LL and SS between image modalities. The mean radiographic measurements were as follows: LL 48.9 (SD: 12.8), sLL 32.3 (SD: 8.1), and SS 37.3 (SD: 8.7) degrees. The mean MRI measurements were as follows: LL 46.0 (SD: 10.5), sLL 32.3 (SD: 7.1), and SS 38.1 (SD: 7.1) degrees. Mean vertebral body magnification was between 21% and 23% for L3 anteroposterior diameter and height.
conclusionsOur results suggest that supine lumbar MRI might be a viable alternative to standing lateral lumbar radiographs for measuring LL and SS in routine follow-up for patients with LSS without concomitant spinal deformity. Standing radiographs are recommended as part of the initial investigation for LSS. Standing lumbar radiographs may yield high grades of magnification.
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.