AzTrials
AzTrials

Cervical LordosisCLIP-MNCT07541586

Cervical Lordosis: Imaging Position and Measurement

An observational study of Cervical Lordosis and Lordosis; Postural, run by Medipol University at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

This retrospective cross-sectional study aims to compare cervical lordosis measurements obtained from standing lateral radiographs and supine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in individuals without structural cervical pathology. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 to 65 years
How many people
58 participants
Where
1 siteTurkey (Türkiye)
Study dates
1 Jan 2025to 1 Jul 2026
Phase
Observational
Are there results?
None posted in the registry

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 to 65 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Study population: Adults aged 18-65 years with clinically obtained standing cervical radiographs or supine cervical MRI during the registry period and without structural cervical pathology affecting alignment.

Who may be able to join

  • Adults aged 18 to 65 years
  • Availability of standing lateral cervical radiograph or supine cervical MRI performed during the registry period
  • No structural cervical pathology affecting sagittal alignment
  • Images of adequate quality for radiographic measurement
  • Neutral standing radiograph position for Standing Radiograph Group
  • Standard supine acquisition for Supine MRI Group

Who cannot join

  • Prior cervical spine surgery
  • Cervical fracture, dislocation, or whiplash history
  • Primary or metastatic cervical malignancy
  • Congenital vertebral anomaly including Klippel-Feil syndrome, os odontoideum, hemivertebra, block vertebra, or atlantoaxial instability
  • Spinal deformity or postural disorder likely to affect cervical alignment, including scoliosis, hyperkyphosis, or Scheuermann disease
  • Advanced degenerative cervical disease, including severe spondylosis, cervical spinal stenosis, OPLL, or DISH
Show all 9Show fewer
  • Inflammatory or autoimmune rheumatologic disease affecting the spine
  • Neuromuscular or neurologic disorders affecting posture or alignment
  • Inadequate image quality, major artifact, or improper positioning

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

Turkey (Türkiye)1 site
  • İstanbul Medipol University

    Istanbul

Other trials in Turkey (Türkiye)

About this study

Official title: Position- and Measurement-Dependent Differences in Cervical Lordosis: A Comparative Analysis of Standing Radiographs and Supine MRI

This retrospective cross-sectional study aims to compare cervical lordosis measurements obtained from standing lateral radiographs and supine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in individuals without structural cervical pathology. The study also evaluates the independent contribution of T1 slope to cervical alignment and investigates whether imaging modality significantly alters measured lordosis values.

Read the detailed description

Cervical lordosis is a key determinant of sagittal spinal alignment and plays a critical role in maintaining horizontal gaze, biomechanical efficiency, and overall spinal balance. Accurate assessment of cervical alignment is essential for clinical decision-making, particularly in the evaluation of degenerative conditions, deformity, and surgical planning. However, despite its clinical importance, there remains substantial variability in both the measurement techniques and the reported normative values of cervical lordosis.

Among the available measurement methods, the Cobb technique and the posterior tangent method are the most commonly used approaches. While the Cobb method provides a global estimate of cervical curvature, the posterior tangent method allows for a more segmental analysis. Nevertheless, these techniques may yield significantly different results even within the same patient, contributing to inconsistency across studies. Furthermore, the absence of a universally accepted standard complicates comparisons between studies and limits the generalizability of findings.

One of the most important determinants of cervical lordosis is the T1 slope, defined as the angle between the superior endplate of the T1 vertebra and the horizontal plane. The T1 slope has been shown to function analogously to pelvic incidence in the lumbar spine, serving as a morphological parameter that dictates the required degree of cervical lordosis for maintaining sagittal balance. Several studies have demonstrated a strong linear relationship between T1 slope and cervical lordosis, suggesting that cervical curvature is largely T1 slope-dependent. This relationship has led to the development of predictive models for estimating ideal cervical lordosis based on T1 slope values.

Despite this established biomechanical relationship, another critical factor influencing cervical alignment is patient positioning during imaging. It is well recognized that standing radiographs and supine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) produce systematically different measurements of cervical lordosis. Under weight-bearing conditions, the cervical spine adopts a more lordotic configuration to maintain head posture and balance, whereas in the supine position, the loss of axial loading leads to a relative reduction in lordosis. Previous studies have shown that MRI tends to underestimate cervical lordosis compared to standing radiographs, with reported differences ranging between 2° and 6° depending on the measurement technique and patient population.

However, most of the existing literature on imaging-related differences in cervical alignment has been conducted in populations with degenerative cervical pathology, such as cervical spondylotic myelopathy. These pathological conditions may introduce confounding factors, including stiffness, pain-related muscle guarding, and structural deformity, which can alter the natural biomechanical relationship between T1 slope and cervical lordosis. Consequently, the extent to which imaging modality alone influences cervical alignment in individuals without structural pathology remains incompletely understood.

Furthermore, although previous studies have demonstrated both (1) a strong association between T1 slope and cervical lordosis and (2) systematic differences between imaging modalities, these two aspects have rarely been evaluated together within a single analytical framework. In particular, there is a lack of studies that quantify the independent contribution of imaging modality after adjusting for T1 slope using multivariable regression analysis. This gap limits the ability to interpret MRI-based measurements in clinical practice and raises questions regarding the comparability of measurements obtained using different imaging techniques.

The present study aims to address this gap by evaluating cervical alignment in a cohort of individuals without structural cervical pathology, thereby minimizing confounding factors related to degenerative or deformity-related changes. Cervical lordosis is assessed using Cobb-based measurements (C1-C7 and C2-C7), which are widely accepted as clinically relevant parameters. The primary objective is to compare cervical lordosis values obtained from standing lateral radiographs and supine MRI. The secondary objective is to determine the independent effects of T1 slope and imaging modality on cervical lordosis using multivariable linear regression analysis.

In addition to group comparisons, a multivariable linear regression model will be constructed to evaluate the independent contributions of T1 slope and imaging modality to cervical lordosis measurements. Cervical lordosis (C2-C7 and C1-C7 Cobb angles) will be used as dependent variables, while T1 slope (continuous variable) and imaging modality (binary variable: supine MRI vs standing radiograph) will be included as independent predictors.

This modeling approach allows for quantification of the extent to which imaging modality influences cervical lordosis independently of underlying biomechanical alignment. Furthermore, the regression model provides a predictive framework for estimating cervical lordosis based on T1 slope and imaging conditions, addressing the lack of standardized conversion between supine MRI and standing radiographic measurements reported in the literature.

It is hypothesized that:

  1. Cervical lordosis measurements obtained from supine MRI are significantly lower than those obtained from standing radiographs, and
  2. Imaging modality has an independent effect on cervical lordosis measurements even after adjusting for T1 slope.

By integrating biomechanical parameters with imaging modality effects, this study aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of cervical sagittal alignment and to contribute to the development of clinically applicable models for interpreting MRI-based measurements. Ultimately, these findings may help improve the accuracy of preoperative planning and the interpretation of cervical spine imaging in both research and clinical settings.

This study has been designed, conducted, and will be reported in accordance with the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) statement. As the study utilizes retrospectively collected routine clinical imaging data, additional adherence to the RECORD (REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data) guidelines is ensured.

Sample size considerations were informed by previously reported differences in cervical sagittal alignment across imaging modalities and positions. Prior studies have demonstrated that differences in cervical lordosis between radiographic and MRI-based measurements may range from small to large, depending on imaging conditions and patient positioning. Considering this variability, a conservative moderate-to-large standardized effect size (Cohen's d = 0.75) was assumed for sample size estimation. Based on this assumption, a total sample size of 58 participants (29 per group) was considered sufficient to detect clinically meaningful differences between groups at a significance level of 0.05 with a statistical power of approximately 80%, while acknowledging that smaller effects may remain underpowered.

Descriptive statistics will be reported as mean ± standard deviation for continuous variables and count (percentage) for categorical variables. Normality will be assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Between-group comparisons will be performed using independent-samples t test or Mann-Whitney U test, as appropriate. Sex distribution will be compared using the chi-square test or Fisher exact test, where appropriate. The primary analytical framework will include multivariable linear regression models with Cobb C2-C7 and Cobb C1-C7 angles as dependent variables and T1 slope and imaging modality as independent variables. Statistical significance will be defined as p < 0.05. All statistical analyses will be conducted using jamovi version 2.6.44 and RStudio version 2025.09.2.

Being tested
No intervention
Keywords
Cervical lordosis, Magnetic resonance imaging, Radiography, Position, Cobb angle, T1 slope, Standing radiograph, Supine MRI, Cervical sagittal alignment
Medical subject headings
Lordosis, Deception

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • No interventionOther

    This is an observational study with no assigned intervention. Groups are defined based on the imaging modality (standing radiograph vs supine MRI).

Study groups in NCT07541586
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Standing Radiograph GroupIndividuals with standard lateral cervical radiographs obtained in the upright neutral standing position.
Receives: Other: No intervention
Supine MRI GroupIndividuals with standard cervical magnetic resonance imaging obtained in the supine position.
Receives: Other: No intervention

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Difference in Cobb C2-C7 angle between standing radiographs and supine MRI

    Cobb C2-C7 angle measured using standard endplate-based methodology on standing lateral cervical radiographs and supine cervical MRI. The primary comparison evaluates the difference in cervical lordosis between imaging modalities obtained under weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing conditions.

    Measured: Baseline retrospective image assessment

  2. Difference in Cobb C1-C7 angle between standing radiographs and supine MRI

    Cobb C1-C7 angle measured on standing lateral radiographs and supine MRI using standard radiographic techniques. This outcome assesses global cervical lordosis differences between imaging modalities.

    Measured: Baseline retrospective image assessment

Secondary outcomes (6)
  1. Association between T1 slope and Cobb C2-C7 angle

    The relationship between T1 slope and Cobb C2-C7 angle will be evaluated using correlation and regression analyses. This outcome assesses the biomechanical dependence of cervical lordosis on T1 slope.

    Measured: Baseline retrospective image assessment

  2. Association between T1 slope and Cobb C1-C7 angle

    The relationship between T1 slope and Cobb C1-C7 angle will be analyzed to evaluate the influence of T1 slope on global cervical alignment.

    Measured: Baseline retrospective image assessment

  3. Multivariable linear regression model for Cobb C2-C7

    A multivariable linear regression model will be constructed with Cobb C2-C7 angle as the dependent variable. Independent variables will include T1 slope (continuous), imaging modality (binary: supine MRI vs standing radiograph), and sex (male vs female). An interaction term between imaging modality and sex (Group × Sex) will be included to evaluate whether the effect of imaging modality differs according to sex.

    Measured: Baseline retrospective image assessment

  4. Multivariable linear regression model for Cobb C1-C7

    A multivariable linear regression model will be constructed with Cobb C1-C7 angle as the dependent variable. Independent variables will include T1 slope, imaging modality, and sex. The model will also include an interaction term (Group × Sex) to assess potential effect modification.

    Measured: Baseline retrospective image assessment

  5. Effect of sex on cervical sagittal alignment

    Sex will be evaluated as an independent predictor of cervical alignment parameters (Cobb C2-C7 and Cobb C1-C7) within multivariable regression models.

    Measured: Baseline retrospective image assessment

  6. Interaction between sex and imaging modality

    The interaction between sex and imaging modality will be assessed to determine whether the difference in cervical lordosis between standing radiographs and supine MRI varies according to sex.

    Measured: Baseline retrospective image assessment

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted21 Apr 2026
  2. Study start1 Jan 2025
  3. Primary completion1 Jan 2026
  4. Study completion1 Jul 2026

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Observational
Observational model
Other
Time perspective
Retrospective
Enrolment
58 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT07541586
Sponsor's protocol ID
CLIP-M-001
Acronym
CLIP-M
Status last verified
Oct 2026
First submitted
14 Apr 2026
Last updated
15 Oct 2026
Results posted
No
Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
No

Publications

  • Sevin IE, Bozdag S, Erisken E, Sucu HK. Comparison of Radiography with Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Measurement of Cervical Lordosis. Medicina (Kaunas). 2025 Sep 11;61(9):1654. doi: 10.3390/medicina61091654.

    PubMed 41011045
  • Weinberg DS, Chugh AJ, Gebhart JJ, Eubanks JD. Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Cervical Spine Under-Represents Sagittal Plane Deformity in Degenerative Myelopathy Patients. Int J Spine Surg. 2016 Sep 7;10:32. doi: 10.14444/3032. eCollection 2016.

    PubMed 27909653
  • Boudreau C, Carrondo Cottin S, Ruel-Laliberte J, Mercier D, Gelinas-Phaneuf N, Paquet J. Correlation of supine MRI and standing radiographs for cervical sagittal balance in myelopathy patients: a cross-sectional study. Eur Spine J. 2021 Jun;30(6):1521-1528. doi: 10.1007/s00586-021-06833-0. Epub 2021 Apr 21.

    PubMed 33881642
  • Park JH, Cho CB, Song JH, Kim SW, Ha Y, Oh JK. T1 Slope and Cervical Sagittal Alignment on Cervical CT Radiographs of Asymptomatic Persons. J Korean Neurosurg Soc. 2013 Jun;53(6):356-9. doi: 10.3340/jkns.2013.53.6.356. Epub 2013 Jun 30.

    PubMed 24003370
  • Staub BN, Lafage R, Kim HJ, Shaffrey CI, Mundis GM, Hostin R, Burton D, Lenke L, Gupta MC, Ames C, Klineberg E, Bess S, Schwab F, Lafage V; International Spine Study Group. Cervical mismatch: the normative value of T1 slope minus cervical lordosis and its ability to predict ideal cervical lordosis. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018 Oct 5;30(1):31-37. doi: 10.3171/2018.5.SPINE171232. Print 2019 Jan 1.

    PubMed 30485176
  • Janusz P, Tyrakowski M, Yu H, Siemionow K. Reliability of cervical lordosis measurement techniques on long-cassette radiographs. Eur Spine J. 2016 Nov;25(11):3596-3601. doi: 10.1007/s00586-015-4345-8. Epub 2015 Dec 26.

    PubMed 26707132
  • Martini ML, Neifert SN, Chapman EK, Mroz TE, Rasouli JJ. Cervical Spine Alignment in the Sagittal Axis: A Review of the Best Validated Measures in Clinical Practice. Global Spine J. 2021 Oct;11(8):1307-1312. doi: 10.1177/2192568220972076. Epub 2020 Nov 18.

    PubMed 33203239
  • Harrison DE, Harrison DD, Cailliet R, Troyanovich SJ, Janik TJ, Holland B. Cobb method or Harrison posterior tangent method: which to choose for lateral cervical radiographic analysis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Aug 15;25(16):2072-8. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200008150-00011.

    PubMed 10954638
  • Ames CP, Blondel B, Scheer JK, Schwab FJ, Le Huec JC, Massicotte EM, Patel AA, Traynelis VC, Kim HJ, Shaffrey CI, Smith JS, Lafage V. Cervical radiographical alignment: comprehensive assessment techniques and potential importance in cervical myelopathy. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Oct 15;38(22 Suppl 1):S149-60. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182a7f449.

    PubMed 24113358
  • Scheer JK, Tang JA, Smith JS, Acosta FL Jr, Protopsaltis TS, Blondel B, Bess S, Shaffrey CI, Deviren V, Lafage V, Schwab F, Ames CP; International Spine Study Group. Cervical spine alignment, sagittal deformity, and clinical implications: a review. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013 Aug;19(2):141-59. doi: 10.3171/2013.4.SPINE12838. Epub 2013 Jun 14.

    PubMed 23768023

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

An observational study of Cervical Lordosis and Lordosis; Postural, run by Medipol University at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 6 inclusion and 9 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 15 Oct 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye). Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Difference in Cobb C2-C7 angle between standing radiographs and supine MRI (time frame: Baseline retrospective image assessment). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07541586, which also lists 10 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 15 Oct 2026; AzTrials last refreshed its copy on 26 Oct 2026.

Free account

Keep searching with a free account

You’ve used your 3 free searches for this session. Log in or create a free AzTrials account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in