ReviewCureus2026
Diagnostic Methods for Clinical Lumbar Instability: A Systematic Review of Current Status, Challenges, and Future Directions.
Review in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lumbar segmental instability is characterized by abnormal vertebral movement, resulting in localized pain and restricted function. Despite its clinical significance, the lack of diagnostic standards leads to widespread practice variability. This review critically analyzes existing diagnostic protocols, identifies methodological shortcomings, and synthesizes multimodal diagnostic strategies. Adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, systematic searches across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Embase (inception to December 2025) targeted human diagnostic and observational studies, explicitly excluding studies that used artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms. Of the 657 records, 12 met the eligibility criteria. Quality was appraised using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2), Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Given the clinical heterogeneity, a thematic narrative synthesis was conducted following the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidelines. Findings confirm no single test is adequate. The Passive Lumbar Extension and Lumbar Rocking tests demonstrated strong screening potential (sensitivities: 84.2% and 95.56%; specificities: 90.4% and 40%). Clustered clinical testing significantly improved precision (LR+ 5.80). For imaging, dynamic assessments, such as 3-kg weight-lifting flexion radiographs (88% detection at L3/L4) and sit-to-stand kinematics, outperformed static images. Advanced predictive models using 3D-CT and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression achieved exceptional theoretical accuracy (area under the curve (AUC) 0.972); however, alongside tools such as the Jakarta Instability Score, they carry a high risk of statistical bias and currently lack independent external validation. Diagnosing lumbar instability requires a comprehensive multimodal strategy. Current evidence precision is heavily constrained by small cohort sizes and a pervasive lack of 95% confidence intervals. Future research must prioritize externally validated predictive models and standardized imaging reference criteria.
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.