4.4 Review

Spine biomechanical testing methodologies: The controversy of consensus vs scientific evidence

期刊

JOR SPINE
卷 4, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jsp2.1138

关键词

biomechanics; consensus; controversy; in vitro; mechanical testing; methodology; spine

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [1751212]
  2. Div Of Civil, Mechanical, & Manufact Inn
  3. Directorate For Engineering [1751212] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biomechanical testing methodologies for the spine have evolved over the past 50 years, incorporating advanced engineering principles, in vivo measurements, anatomical structure-function relationships, and the scientific method. While some methods have been commonly adopted, a 2019 survey revealed that not all are consistent with scientific evidence, highlighting the need for standardized testing protocols in the field.
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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据