“…The main study limitations were pitfalls in study design, small sample size, different diagnostic criteria to define axial postural abnormalities, and use of one or more different measurement methods: standard goniometric measurement with a wall goniometer, smartphone, protractor, inclinometer or photographs was used in 22 studies, 40,47,48,50,51,57,58,60–66,72,73,77,78,81,82,98,101 software‐based measurement with NeuroPostureApp, Kinovea, MB Ruler® software, or Image J was used in 12, 37–39,41,44–46,49,51,52,56,97,99 Cobb angle, X‐ray in nine, 42,43,55,71,79,81,83–85 a spinal mouse electronic measuring device in one study 91 ; 26 studies reported no instrument, tool or bony reference points for evaluating axial postural abnormalities 53,54,59,67–70,74–76,80,86–90,92–96,100,102–105 . The quality appraisal was good in 29% (n = 20), fair in 43% (n = 30), and poor in 28% (n = 19) studies.…”