All measurements were performed using MEDIMAGE software LY2603618 chemical structure (Vepro AG, Germany). The blinded measurements were performed 3 times by 2 independent examiners. Sagittal images were used to determine the lordosis and the narrowing of the left/right foramen at all levels between L1/2 and L5/S1. Axial images were used to determine the SDSD, the SCCA and the DSCA at L3/4, L4/5, L5/S1, and narrowing of the left/right recessus lateralis of L4, L5 and S1.
Results. The lordosis showed a significant increase of 6.3 (14%) from supine
to true standing position (P < 0.001). The SDSD is significantly smaller in true standing position, than in supine position at the level of L3/4 and L4/5 (P < 0.001). Narrowing of the foramen occurred in true standing Selleck LOXO-101 position in 13.4% at L4/L5 and in 26.7% at level L5/S1. No significant differences were observed at the recessus lateralis, the SCCA and the DSCA.
Conclusion. The measurement method in supine and true standing position is excellent for depicting the anatomical regions relevant for spinal
canal stenosis in healthy individuals. Measuring the lumbar lordosis angle in both positions is an important requirement for interpreting the relevant anatomical regions. Of particular importance here is the DSCA and the SDSD.”
“Background: The quality of nutrition-related systematic reviews (SRs) is an unstudied but important factor affecting their usefulness.
Objectives: The objectives were to evaluate the reporting quality of published SRs and to identify areas of improvement.
Design: Descriptive and exploratory analyses of the reporting quality (7 nutrition items and 28 SR reporting items) of all English-language SRs published through PX-478 in vitro July 2007 linking micronutrients and health outcomes in humans were conducted. Factors that may be associated with reporting quality were also evaluated.
Results: We identified 141 eligible SRs of
21 micronutrients. Ninety SRs that included only interventional studies met a higher proportion of our reporting criteria (median: 62%; interquartile range: 51%, 72%) than did 31 SRs with only observational studies (median: 53%; interquartile range: 47%, 60%) or 20 SRs with both study designs (median: 47%; interquartile range: 39%, 52%) (P < 0.001). SRs published after consensus reporting standards (since 2003) met a higher proportion of the reporting criteria than did earlier SRs (median: 59% compared with 50%; P = 0.01); however, the reporting of nutrition variables remained unchanged (median: 38% compared with 33%; P = 0.7). The least-reported nutrition criteria were baseline nutrient exposures (28%) and effects of measurement errors from nutrition exposures (24%). Only 58 SRs (41%) used quality scales or checklists to assess the methodologic quality of the primary studies included.
Conclusions: The reporting quality of SRs has improved 3 y after publication of SR reporting standards, but the reporting of nutrition variables has not.