ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
Repeatability and agreement of planar lumbar range of motion measured by dynamic fluoroscopy and optical motion capture in an ovine cadaveric model.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Lumbar range of motion is an important biomechanical parameter for understanding spinal function. However, the repeatability, measurement error, and between-method agreement of dynamic fluoroscopy and optical motion capture remain insufficiently characterized in controlled cadaveric spine testing. Methods: Planar lumbar kinematics were measured using dynamic fluoroscopy within a dynamic X-ray system (DXRS) and optical motion capture with bone-fixed markers (OMCS) in six fresh-frozen ovine lumbar spine specimens, each comprising a continuous L1-L5 segment, during quasi-static flexion-extension and lateral bending. Three repeated trials were performed for each condition. Repeatability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC(2,1)), the standard error of measurement (SEM), and the minimum detectable change at the 95% confidence level (MDC95). Between-method agreement was evaluated using a repeated-measures Bland-Altman approach with specimen-level clustering, exploratory proportional-bias assessment, and specimen-level bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs) (10,000 replicates) for the bias and limits of agreement (LoA). Results: ICC point estimates were generally high within each method across motion conditions and vertebral levels; however, given the modest specimen sample (n = 6), the corresponding 95% CIs were wide and these estimates are reported as preliminary, condition-specific values. OMCS showed numerically smaller SEM and MDC95 than DXRS in this dataset, but specimen-level bootstrap intervals indicated uncertainty around most between-method differences, so these descriptive differences should not be interpreted as evidence of general method superiority. Between-method analysis showed a small positive OMCS-minus-DXRS bias with condition-dependent LoA, and these agreement estimates should likewise be interpreted as preliminary and condition-specific. Conclusion: In this controlled ovine cadaveric model, both DXRS and bone-fixed OMCS provided repeatable measurements of projected planar lumbar motion. OMCS showed numerically smaller measurement-error indices in this dataset and under the present bone-fixed
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.