Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41920407›Full record

ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2026

Intersegmental Spinal Range of Motion Estimated Using Movement Analysis and a Clinically Compatible Marker Set.

Arina Grankova, Claudio Vergari, Maud Crezé, Hélène Pillet

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Arina GrankovaArts et Metiers Institute of Technology, EPF Engineering School, Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, IBHGC-Institut de Biomécanique Humaine Georges Charpak, F-75013, Paris, France.
Claudio VergariArts et Metiers Institute of Technology, EPF Engineering School, Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, IBHGC-Institut de Biomécanique Humaine Georges Charpak, F-75013, Paris, France. c.vergari@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7049-2405
Maud CrezéRadiology Department, Bicêtre Hospital, DMU SMART IMAGING, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5753-9096
Hélène PilletArts et Metiers Institute of Technology, EPF Engineering School, Université Sorbonne Paris Nord, IBHGC-Institut de Biomécanique Humaine Georges Charpak, F-75013, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0263-5910

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeEvaluation of spinal mobility is essential for clinical assessment of spinal disorders and their treatment. Motion capture systems can offer intersegmental kinematic data for the spine, but results usually depend on marker placement, and the definition of reference frames can still pose a challenge for clinical relevance and data comparison. This pilot study aimed to propose a reduced marker set protocol to estimate thoracic, lumbar, and intervertebral ranges of motion (ROM) during functional trunk movements - flexion/extension (FE), lateral bending (LB), and axial rotation (AR).

methodsFifteen asymptomatic young adults performed standardised trunk tasks, while a twenty-one-marker configuration and motion-capture system were used to capture their 3D spinal motion. Anatomical coordinate systems were constructed for pelvis, thoracic, and lumbar regions. Three models of intervertebral kinematic constraints were compared, implementing different degrees of freedom between intervertebral segments, and different distribution of ROM to individual spinal levels. The agreement among models was assessed, and ROM was compared to literature data.

resultsResults showed large differences in ROM between kinematic models, as well as differences with reference data in the literature. Furthermore, differences between models were not consistent across all movements (FE, LB, AR).

conclusionsThis study highlights the need for in vivo data to reflect functional, coupled spinal motion. The choice of kinematic model had a large impact on ROM and segmental ROM. Nevertheless, the proposed recduced marker protocol combined with validated kinematic constraints could offer a feasible and anatomically plausible solution for clinical spine mobility assessment.

Indexed as

FlexibilityIn vivoQuantitative movement analysisSpine

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.