ArticleChiropractic & manual therapies2025
The relation between bulk (external) and internal measures of spinal stiffness.
Article in Chiropractic & manual therapies, 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.
- Variable Impedance Control for Force Tracking in Multi-Mode Robotic Back Massage.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile spinal stiffness is thought to be an important factor in the diagnosis and management of various spinal conditions, it is notoriously difficult to measure directly. As a result, clinicians often rely on posteroanterior palpation to estimate bulk stiffness as a proxy for the stiffness of internal spinal tissues. Unfortunately, the validity of this proxy remains uncertain. To investigate this, we posed two key research questions: (1) How do measurements of bulk stiffness correlate with direct measures of spinal stiffness? and (2) Can bulk stiffness measurements be normalized to more accurately reflect internal spinal stiffness?
methodsThis cross-sectional measurement study investigated the relation between bulk and internal spinal stiffness in a young, asymptomatic cohort. Bulk stiffness defined as external resistance of the spine measured through mechanical indentation at the L3 vertebra, while internal spinal stiffness was assessed concurrently using fluoroscopic imaging. Linear regression was used to analyze the relation between bulk and internal spinal stiffness measures. Bulk measures were then normalized using physical measurements (e.g. height, weight) and tissue volume measures of the multifidi obtained by MRI (i.e. muscle volume) and reanalyzed.
resultsTwenty-six persons (26) participated, with data from 7 of those being excluded due to fluoroscopic movement artifacts. Unnormalized bulk stiffness was found to correlate poorly with internal spinal stiffness (R2 = 0.1883). Normalization of bulk stiffness using factors such as body weight and multifidus muscle volume did not improve R2 values. Our results were further validated through post hoc analysis, suggesting en bloc movement of the lumbar spine.
conclusionsRaw bulk spinal stiffness values should not be used as a proxy for internal spinal stiffness as they measure unrelated constructs. Our results may help explain why bulk stiffness measures of the spine may not always align with clinical outcomes. Attempts to normalize bulk spinal stiffness to various human factors such as weight and paravertebral muscle volume did not improve the correlation between bulk spinal stiffness and internal spinal stiffness.
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.