ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2025
Cross-validation of two independent methods to analyze the sequence of segmental contributions in the cervical spine in extension cineradiographic recordings.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 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.
- Article
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
backgroundThe sequence of segmental contributions (SSC) offers insight into cervical spine motion, yet accurately analyzing these movements remains challenging. This study compares two tracking methods, developed at two independent centers (AECC and MUMC), to establish their agreement and reliability in measuring SSCs across segments C4 to C7. Understanding spinal biomechanics is crucial for future research into cervical spine pathology and dysfunction.
methodsTwelve asymptomatic participants (ages 18-35 for "young" and 55-70 for "elderly") performed flexion-extension movements. MUMC + utilized self-directed motion, while AECC used a guided protocol. To ensure comparability, 26 frames from the second half of each extension movement were analyzed. Agreement was assessed using ICCs, Spearman's Rho, and Bland-Altman analysis. Although the sample size is small, a post-hoc power analysis indicated sufficient power, supported by a high volume of analyzed data points.
findingsHigh intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for the cumulative vertebral rotation (0.97), cumulative intervertebral rotation (0.97) and relative intervertebral rotation (0.93) indicated strong agreement between the two methods. Bland-Altman analysis showed minimal median differences (< 0.2˚) but wider limits of agreement at C6-C7. Normative SSC patterns appeared in 77.8% of younger participants but were absent in elderly participants.
interpretationThis study confirms the reliability of SSC measurement between the two methods, laying the foundation for broader applications. SSC patterns observed in young adults follow a normative pattern, in alignment with previous research. The absence of a fixed pattern in elderly participants could indicate age-related changes or sample variation, warranting cautious interpretation due to the small sample size. Future studies with larger, diverse samples and AI-driven approaches could enhance SSC analysis, enabling better clinical relevance.
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.