ReviewCureus2026
Lumbar Spine Motion Analysis: A Systematic Review of Segmental and Global Range of Motion.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate assessment of lumbar spine range of motion (ROM) is essential for evaluating spinal biomechanics, monitoring disease progression, and assessing outcomes following motion-preserving interventions. Numerous techniques have been developed to quantify lumbar motion, each differing in measurement principles, accuracy, and clinical applicability. This review synthesizes current methods for assessing segmental and global lumbar spine ROM. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed using the terms "lumbar spine" AND "motion analysis" OR "motion evaluation" OR "motion assessment." Peer-reviewed English-language studies published between 2000 and 2025 were screened according to predefined eligibility criteria. Eligible studies were categorized based on assessment methodology and clinical application. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria and evaluated a range of lumbar spine motion assessment techniques, including dynamic fluoroscopic systems, advanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), functional X-ray analysis, motion capture systems, and wearable inertial measurement units (IMU). Dynamic imaging and computer-assisted analysis generally demonstrated improved measurement precision compared with conventional radiographic assessment, while MRI-based and wearable technologies offered radiation-free or ambulatory alternatives. Each modality demonstrated distinct advantages and limitations with respect to measurement accuracy, practicality, and clinical application. A wide range of techniques is available for lumbar spine motion analysis, each offering unique strengths and limitations. Although conventional radiographs remain widely used in clinical practice, emerging technologies provide enhanced dynamic assessment and greater measurement precision. Continued standardization of imaging protocols and further validation of these technologies are needed to facilitate broader clinical implementation.
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.