ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2026
Clinical Utility of Physical Examination Findings in Pediatric and Adolescent Acute Spondylolysis.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Previous research describes imaging via magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the gold standard for the diagnosis of spondylolysis after clinical examination. Existing literature on the accuracy of physical examination findings related to positive acute spondylolysis on MRI is limited. Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic value of clinical examination maneuvers in assessing acute spondylolysis in adolescent athletes with low back pain related to positive radiographic findings. Study Design: Cohort study (Diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data were abstracted from a sports medicine registry that prospectively collects data from the electronic health record (EHR) for patients seen for orthopaedic conditions across a regional health care network. Patients aged 8 to 18 years assessed for lumbar back pain via a standardized lumbar back pain assessment protocol and who had completed an MRI study between January 2019 and February 2024 were included. Patient information, pain duration, radiographic findings, and pain-associated physical assessment maneuvers were abstracted from the EHR. Results: Of 733 patients meeting study criteria, 260 (35.5%) had findings of acute spondylolysis on MRI. The mean age at initial evaluation was 14.8 years, with most patients (40.6%) presenting with 1 to 3 months of lumbar back pain. Overall, 94.2% of patients with acute spondylolysis on MRI had pain with hyperextension of the lumbar spine on physical examination, and 52.3% had pain with the single-leg hop maneuver. Those reporting pain with both hyperextension and single-leg hop had the highest prevalence of acute spondylolysis. Male patients, patients aged 13 to 14 years, and those presenting with 2 to 4 weeks of back pain had the highest prevalence of MRI-confirmed acute spondylolysis. Conclusion: This study evaluates the clinical accuracy of physical examination and patient characteristics associated with prevalence of acute spondylolysis in patients who present with lumbar back pain confirmed via MRI. A higher prevalence of acute spondylolysis was observed across several subgroups, including males, early to mid-adolescents, those with shorter symptom duration, and those demonstrating both hyperextension and single-leg hopping pain. Incorporating both maneuvers improved diagnostic accuracy for identifying acute spondylolysis. Findings demonstrate that both hyperextension and single-leg hopping pain may warrant advanced imaging to rule out acute spondylolysis as a cause of lumbar back pain.
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.