Cargando…
Spine biomechanical testing methodologies: The controversy of consensus vs scientific evidence
Biomechanical testing methodologies for the spine have developed over the past 50 years. During that time, there have been several paradigm shifts with respect to techniques. These techniques evolved by incorporating state‐of‐the‐art engineering principles, in vivo measurements, anatomical structure...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7984003/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33778410 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsp2.1138 |
_version_ | 1783667984033644544 |
---|---|
author | Costi, John J. Ledet, Eric H. O'Connell, Grace D. |
author_facet | Costi, John J. Ledet, Eric H. O'Connell, Grace D. |
author_sort | Costi, John J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Biomechanical testing methodologies for the spine have developed over the past 50 years. During that time, there have been several paradigm shifts with respect to techniques. These techniques evolved by incorporating state‐of‐the‐art engineering principles, in vivo measurements, anatomical structure‐function relationships, and the scientific method. Multiple parametric studies have focused on the effects that the experimental technique has on outcomes. As a result, testing methodologies have evolved, but there are no standard testing protocols, which makes the comparison of findings between experiments difficult and conclusions about in vivo performance challenging. In 2019, the international spine research community was surveyed to determine the consensus on spine biomechanical testing and if the consensus opinion was consistent with the scientific evidence. More than 80 responses to the survey were received. The findings of this survey confirmed that while some methods have been commonly adopted, not all are consistent with the scientific evidence. This review summarizes the scientific literature, the current consensus, and the authors' recommendations on best practices based on the compendium of available evidence. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7984003 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | John Wiley & Sons, Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-79840032021-03-25 Spine biomechanical testing methodologies: The controversy of consensus vs scientific evidence Costi, John J. Ledet, Eric H. O'Connell, Grace D. JOR Spine Review Biomechanical testing methodologies for the spine have developed over the past 50 years. During that time, there have been several paradigm shifts with respect to techniques. These techniques evolved by incorporating state‐of‐the‐art engineering principles, in vivo measurements, anatomical structure‐function relationships, and the scientific method. Multiple parametric studies have focused on the effects that the experimental technique has on outcomes. As a result, testing methodologies have evolved, but there are no standard testing protocols, which makes the comparison of findings between experiments difficult and conclusions about in vivo performance challenging. In 2019, the international spine research community was surveyed to determine the consensus on spine biomechanical testing and if the consensus opinion was consistent with the scientific evidence. More than 80 responses to the survey were received. The findings of this survey confirmed that while some methods have been commonly adopted, not all are consistent with the scientific evidence. This review summarizes the scientific literature, the current consensus, and the authors' recommendations on best practices based on the compendium of available evidence. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2021-01-05 /pmc/articles/PMC7984003/ /pubmed/33778410 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsp2.1138 Text en © 2021 The Authors. JOR Spine published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Orthopaedic Research Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Review Costi, John J. Ledet, Eric H. O'Connell, Grace D. Spine biomechanical testing methodologies: The controversy of consensus vs scientific evidence |
title | Spine biomechanical testing methodologies: The controversy of consensus vs scientific evidence |
title_full | Spine biomechanical testing methodologies: The controversy of consensus vs scientific evidence |
title_fullStr | Spine biomechanical testing methodologies: The controversy of consensus vs scientific evidence |
title_full_unstemmed | Spine biomechanical testing methodologies: The controversy of consensus vs scientific evidence |
title_short | Spine biomechanical testing methodologies: The controversy of consensus vs scientific evidence |
title_sort | spine biomechanical testing methodologies: the controversy of consensus vs scientific evidence |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7984003/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33778410 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsp2.1138 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT costijohnj spinebiomechanicaltestingmethodologiesthecontroversyofconsensusvsscientificevidence AT ledeterich spinebiomechanicaltestingmethodologiesthecontroversyofconsensusvsscientificevidence AT oconnellgraced spinebiomechanicaltestingmethodologiesthecontroversyofconsensusvsscientificevidence |