ArticlePDF AvailableLiterature Review

Abstract and Figures

Background Clinicians commonly examine posture and movement in people with the belief that correcting dysfunctional movement may reduce pain. If dysfunctional movement is to be accurately identified, clinicians should know what constitutes normal movement and how this differs in people with low back pain (LBP). This systematic review examined studies that compared biomechanical aspects of lumbo-pelvic movement in people with and without LBP. Methods MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, AMI, CINAHL, Scopus, AMED, ISI Web of Science were searched from inception until January 2014 for relevant studies. Studies had to compare adults with and without LBP using skin surface measurement techniques to measure lumbo-pelvic posture or movement. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria, and identified and extracted data. Standardised mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for group differences between people with and without LBP, and where possible, meta-analyses were performed. Within-group variability in all measurements was also compared. Results The search identified 43 eligible studies. Compared to people without LBP, on average, people with LBP display: (i) no difference in lordosis angle (8 studies), (ii) reduced lumbar ROM (19 studies), (iii) no difference in lumbar relative to hip contribution to end-range flexion (4 studies), (iv) no difference in standing pelvic tilt angle (3 studies), (v) slower movement (8 studies), and (vi) reduced proprioception (17 studies). Movement variability appeared greater for people with LBP for flexion, lateral flexion and rotation ROM, and movement speed, but not for other movement characteristics. Considerable heterogeneity exists between studies, including a lack of detail or standardization between studies on the criteria used to define participants as people with LBP (cases) or without LBP (controls). Conclusions On average, people with LBP have reduced lumbar ROM and proprioception, and move more slowly compared to people without LBP. Whether these deficits exist prior to LBP onset is unknown.
Content may be subject to copyright.
RES E AR C H A R T I C L E Open Access
Comparing lumbo-pelvic kinematics in people
with and without back pain: a systematic review
and meta-analysis
Robert A Laird
1,5*
, Jayce Gilbert
2
, Peter Kent
3,4
and Jennifer L Keating
1
Abstract
Background: Clinicians commonly examine posture and movement in people with the belief that correcting
dysfunctional movement may reduce pain. If dysfunctional movement is to be accurately identified, clinicians
should know what constitutes normal movement and how this differs in people with low back pain (LBP). This
systematic review examined studies that compared biomechanical aspects of lumbo-pelvic movement in people
with and without LBP.
Methods: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, AMI, CINAHL, Scopus, AMED, ISI Web of Science were searched
from inception until January 2014 for relevant studies. Studies had to compare adults with and without LBP using
skin surface measurement techniques to measure lumbo-pelvic posture or movement. Two reviewers independently
applied inclusion and exclusion criteria, and identified and extracted data. Standardised mean differences and 95%
confidence intervals were estimated for group differences between people with and without LBP, and where possible,
meta-analyses were performed. Within-group variability in all measurements was also compared.
Results: The search identified 43 eligible studies. Compared to people without LBP, on average, people with LBP
display: (i) no difference in lordosis angle (8 studies), (ii) reduced lumbar ROM (19 studies), (iii) no difference in lumbar
relative to hip contribution to end-range flexion (4 studies), (iv) no difference in standing pelvic tilt angle (3 studies), (v)
slower movement (8 studies), and (vi) reduced proprioception (17 studies). Movement variability appeared greater for
people with LBP for flexion, lateral flexion and rotation ROM, and movement speed, but not for other movement
characteristics. Considerable heterogeneity exists between studies, including a lack of detail or standardization
between studies on the criteria used to define participants as people with LBP (cases) or without LBP (controls).
Conclusions: On average, people with LBP have reduced lumbar ROM and proprioception, and move more slowly
compared to people without LBP. Whether these deficits exist prior to LBP onset is unknown.
Keywords: Low back pain, Movement disorders, Posture, Range of movement, Lordosis, Proprioception
Background
Observation of lumbo-pelvic movement and posture is a
basic component of the physical examination of people
with low back pain (LBP) [1-4] partly due to a common
belief held by clinicians that identifying and correcting
movement/postural aberration can improve pain and
activity limitation [2,5,6]. Examination of lumbo-pelvic
movement typically includes basic kinematic assessments,
such as range of movement (ROM) and posture. It may
also include higher order kinematics such as temporal and
sequential patterns during physiological movements,
proprioception, muscle activation patterns, postural sway
and/or complex functional movements such as walking or
lifting. If clinicians aim to normalise dysfunctional move-
ment, they need an empirical basis for (i) differentiating
between normal and dysfunctional movement, and (ii) de-
termining whether correction of dysfunctional movement
might reduce pain and activity limitation. Measurement of
movement and posture has been problematic in typical
clinical settings due to limitations (practicality, accuracy,
* Correspondence: robert.laird@monash.edu
1
Department of Physiotherapy, Monash University, PO Box 527, Frankston,
VIC 3199, Australia
5
7 Kerry Rd, Warranwood, Melbourne, VIC 3134, Australia
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
© 2014 Laird et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain
Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article,
unless otherwise stated.
Laird et al. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2014, 15:229
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/15/229
comprehensiveness, reliability) of simple measurement
tools such as goniometers, tape measures and inclinometers
[7]. Advances in technology are creating new opportunities,
available for use in typical clinical settings, that measure
comprehensive information about the relationship between
movement/posture and pain [8-10].
Measurements reported in studies of lumbo-pelvic
kinematics, such as ROM, vary considerably. This variabil-
ity may be due to differences in measurement instruments
or methods [11], biological differences in true range of
movements, or errors in measurements. Intolo [12], in a
systematic review into the effect of age on ROM, per-
formed a meta-analysis of mean scores for lumbar ROM
for 20-29 year olds. Across studies, the lowest reported
group mean score for flexion was 24 ± [13] while the
highest was 75 ± 10° [14]. Similarly, mean scores for exten-
sion ranged from 13 ± [13] to 41 ± 10° [15]. These large
differences between studies are unlikely to be due to bio-
logical differences alone. Milosavljevic et al. [13] provided
ROM estimates using a photographic method, Russell
et al. [14] used an Isotrak system and Fitzgerald et al. [15]
used a tape-measure (Schober) method [16]; such method
differences are likely to account for a large proportion
of observed differences. Similar variation is s een for
axial rotation and lateral flexion movements. Extreme
variations in reported ROM mea surements limit confi-
dence in clinical interpretations or treatment decisions
based on measurement s of an individual.
A search for reviews on what is known about typical
movement in people with and without LBP identified
one review on postural sway [17], and one review on
age-related changes to lumbar spine ROM [12]. The
qualitative review on postural sway, reported that 14 of
16 included papers conc luded that people with LBP
have greater postural sway excursion when compared to
people without LBP. The review on age-related change
to lumbar ROM reported a reduction in ROM associated
with increasing age but did not include people with LBP
and did not report mean ROM data. No reviews were
foundcomparingpeoplewithandwithoutLBPonany
other movement characteristics. Therefore, we designed
this review to systematically investigate and compare typical
lumbo-pelvic movement differences between people with
and without LBP, focusing on ROM, movement sequence
and speed, a movement related measure of proprioception
(positioning/re-positioning accuracy), pelvic tilt angles (in
standing and sitting), and segmental body contributions to
movement (lumbar versus hip contributions). We also
compared differences in variability between the two groups.
Methods
Study selection: inclusi on and exclusion criteria
For inclusion in the review, studies had to (i) a ssess
adults >17 years; (ii) use non-invasive measurement
systems (i.e. did not use measurement s such as X-rays,
CT scans); (iii) apply the same procedures to measure
people with low back +/-leg pain (LBP group) and
people without LBP (NoLBP group), (iv) measure at
least one of l umbar lordos is , lumbar range of moti on
(ROM), speed/acceleration/timing of lu mbar +/- hip
movement, pelvic tilt angle (as measured by a line drawn
from anterior to posterior superior iliac spines with an
angle formed relative to horizontal, measured in sitting or
standing), pelvic tilt ROM (defined as a range from
maximum anterior tilt to maximum posterior tilt), usual
sitting pelvic tilt p osition (i.e. relative to full anterior
tilt), lumbar compared with hip contributions to ROM,
lumbo-pelvic proprioceptive position/re-position accur-
acy; (v) report appropriate measurement means (or other
point estimates) and variance estimates or data that enable
estimation of these values. In order to fully survey pub-
lished research on lumbo-pelvic movement, no specific
definitions of back pain or control (NoLBP) groups were
required but the definitions of LBP group, pain intensity
and NoLBP group within each study were extracted. Stud-
ies were excluded if they (i) included people who had lum-
bar surgery in the previous 12 months; (ii) reported that
subjects had fracture, neurological conditions, metabolic
disease, neoplasm, or scoliosis; (iii) measured only whole
body movement such as distance from finger-tip-to-floor
or (iv) reported insufficient data, e.g. did not report mea-
sures of variability. Lead authors were contacted to obtain
additional data as required.
Data sources
Eight electronic databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Central
Register of Controlled Trials (Central), EMBASE, AMI,
CINAHL, Scopus, AMED, ISI Web of Science) were
searched from inception until January 2014 using a broad
search strategy based on relevant medical subject heading
(MeSH) terms [18] (see Additional file 1). The search yield
was initially screened for eligibility by one reviewer (RL)
on title and abstract to remove duplicates and clearly un-
related articles. Following this, two reviewers (RL and JG)
independently identified potentially relevant articles based
on title and abstract. Full text articles were retrieved and
checked for compliance with inclusion and exclusion cri-
teria. References of potentially relevant reports were
reviewed for additional papers. Consensus by discussion
was then reached on article inclusion. Where disagree-
ment occurred, a third reviewer (JK) was included and
discussion continued until consensus was achieved. A flow
diagram of the study selection process based on PRISMA
recommendations [19] is seen in Figure 1.
Data extraction and study quality assessment
A checklist for data extraction was developed based on
those used in a similar review [12] and published quality
Laird et al. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2014, 15:229 Page 2 of 13
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/15/229
assessment tools [20-22]. The following study details
were extracted: participant age, sex , and source charac-
teristics, inclusion/exclusion criteria, training of testers
(profession, experience), measurement methods and pro-
cedures (instrument used, instructions to participants,
position of testing), the movement characteristics assessed
(e.g. range, speed, relative contributions of body seg-
ments), pain/function measures, measurements for those
with and without back pain (e.g. means, standard devia-
tions). A quality assessment tool, using a similar approach
to Mieritz [23], was constructed to determine how each
study accounted for possible sources of bias, and if the
study provided details on: (i) study population (age, sex,
BMI, source), (ii) participant LBP (chronicity, +/- leg pain,
specific versus non-specific, pain intensity and activity
limitation scores), (iii) measurement procedures (i.e. detail
that would enable accurate replication of the experiment,
instrument description, standardised movement instruc-
tions, movement process description e.g. fixed or free pel-
vis), (iv) blinding of assessors to the presence of back pain
(yes/no), and (vi) whether the same assessment proce-
dures were applied to participants with and without back
pain (see Additional file 2). Two reviewers independently
extracted data, compared results and resolved differences
through discussion.
Data synthesis and analysis
Study details were extracted and summarised (Additional
files 3 and 4). For each comparison, standardised mean
differences (SMD) between groups with and without LBP
were calculated using Revman software [24]. Pooled esti-
mates of overall differences were calculated by meta-analysis
of studies that measured a kinematic characteristic using
comparable methods. For example studies on flexion
ROM were included in a meta-analysis if subjects were
standing using angular measurement but excluded if sub-
jects were in other positions (i.e. four point kneeling) or if
linear/distance measurements were used. Reasons for
exclusion from meta-analysis are found in Additional
file 3. A random effects model was used for pooling
where fixed effects modeling indicated statistical heterogen-
eity of the data (Mantel-Haenszel method), as determined
by chi-squared and I
2
statistics; otherwise the results of
fixed effects modeling was reported [25,26].
Figure 1 Flow diagram of study inclusion.
Laird et al. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2014, 15:229 Page 3 of 13
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/15/229
We also planned to explore the within-group variability
in each measured movement characteristic. To estimate
whether variability for each movement characteristic dif-
fered between groups with and without LBP, a coefficient
of variation (CoV) [27] (standard deviation in measure-
ments divided by the group mean) was calculated for each
movement parameter using those studies included in the
relevant meta-analysis. CoVs were averaged after weight-
ing for sample size. Differences between groups were ex-
amined by creating a ratio of weighted averages where
ratios >1 indicate greater variability for those with LBP
and ratios <1 indicate greater variability for those without
LBP. Significant differences in pooled CoVs were exam-
ined by estimating 95% confidence intervals for observed
ratios. The correlation (Pearsons r) between effect size
and study quality was calculated using STATA (version 12,
Stata Corp, College Station, Texas USA).
Results
Search yield
The search identified 17,276 potentially relevant articles
with 13 articles identified from bibliographies of related
articles or other sources. Following screening of title and
abstract, full texts of 86 articles were retrieved. Forty
three studies (45 articles) met the inclusion criteria
[28-70]. The study selection process is shown in Figure 1.
A summary of included studies can be seen in Additional
file 3. A list of studies retrieved in full text and subse-
quently excluded, and reasons for exclusion, are available
from the first author on request.
Types of studies found
Included studies were grouped in categories: lordosis
[31,32,38,47-49,57,58], range of movement (ROM) [29,30,
34,37-42,44,47,50-54,56-59,69,71], relative hip and lumbar
contribution to trunk flexion/extension [34,40,50,5 2,61, 71],
pelvic angle/relative position and ROM [31,32,57,58],
speed/acceleration of lumbar movement [28,34,37,39,41,
42,50,71], and proprioception (repositioning accuracy)
[33,35,45,46,53,55,60-68,70,72]. Additional file 4 sum-
marises the characteristics of included studies.
Definition of LBP and NoLBP groups
Case definition (LBP) Of the 43 studies included, 48%
provide no detail on diagnostic criteria, 37% defined their
LBP participants as non-specific, and the remaining 15%
used either a Quebec [73] or a movement based classifica-
tion (see Additional file 5 for details). Fifty-six percent
reported pain intensity scores.
Control definition (NoLBP) A definition of control
participants was provided by 60% of the 43 studies. Those
definitions were highly variable, ranging from vague de-
scriptions such as no current pain (16%), six-months
(14%), 12-months (14%) or 24-months (7%) pain free to
no LBP ever (9%).
Quality assessment
Table 1 lists the domains identified as potential sources
of bias in the included studies and the percentage com-
pliance with each item. No studies attempted blinding of
assessors to group status , and only one study reported
standardizing inst ructions to participants. The potential
influence of study quality on reported differences between
groups was examined for all groups. There was no signifi-
cant correlation observed between total quality assessment
scores and the magnitude of SMDs in measurements for
those with and without LBP (r = 0.03), There was also no
significant difference between individual items of quality as-
sessment and the size of SMD. Results for individual studies
are available in Additional file 5.
Movement characteristics
Lordosis
A meta-analysis of eight studies comparing l umbar lordosis
angle in people with and without LBP when standing is
presented in Figure 2. Most studies reported small,
non-significant differences between groups. The pooled
difference (SMD = 0.01, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.11, p = 0.89)
was not significant. A post-hoc meta-analysis of three
studies that compared genders indicated that women had
greater lordosis angles than men (SMD = 0.92, 95% CI 0.8
to 1.05, p < 0.01).
Range of motion (ROM)
Meta-analyses of 26 ROM studies consistently found
reduced range of movement of the lumbar spine in
people with LBP. F igures 3, 4, 5 and 6 summaris e the
findings for flexion, extension, lateral flexion and rota-
tion meta-analysis. Where studies measured bilateral
movement, i.e. left and right rotation, weighted means
and standard deviations were averaged. In some included
studies, measurements from a single group without LBP
were compared with a number of LBP groups, such as
men and women or acute and chronic LBP. As the ob-
served differences may not satisfy the statistical assump-
tion of independence required for meta-analysis [74], the
sample size of these groups without LBP used in the
meta-analysis were divided by the number of comparisons
made. Means and standard deviations (SD) are in degrees
of movement.
Lumbar spine ve rsus hip contribution to flexion/ext ension
Six studies examined the relative lumbar and hip contri-
bution to flexion movements, five [34,50,52,61,71] during
forward flexion, and one [40] returning from a fully flexed
position. Four of five studies investigating forward flexion
found no significant difference between those with and
Laird et al. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2014, 15:229 Page 4 of 13
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/15/229
without LBP when comparing lumb ar wit h hip co ntri-
bution (ratio) to flexion ROM at end range. A non-
significant but consistent effect favored reduced lumbar
(compared with hip) contribution to flexion (Figure 7) for
those with LBP (SMD = -0.21, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.09, p =
0.17). Three studies [34,40,52] found significant differences
in the through-r a nge contribution of lumbar movement.
Esola et al. [34] (SMD = -0.86, 95% CI -1.51 to -0.22) and
Porter et al. [52] (SMD = -0.71 95% CI -1.43 to 0.00) both
found significant reductions of lumbar contribution to mid-
range flexion but not at end range. McClure et al. [40]
found a greater contribution of the lumbar spine during
mid-range return fro m the full y flexed po sition (relative
extension) (SMD = 0.95 95% CI 0.10 to 1.81).
Pelvic tilt angle, relative position and tilt range
Three studies (four articles) examined usual pelvic tilt
angle in standing [31,32,57,58]. No sign ificant differences
were found between people with or without LBP for any
study (see Table 1 for details). A small, non-significant
but consistent effect favouring greater anterior pelvic tilt
in people with LBP was evident when studies were pooled
in meta-analysis (see Figure 8). Only Day et al. [32] com-
pared differences between groups with and without LBP
in full anterior and posterior tilt positions, and found a
significant difference for maximum anterior tilt angle
(higher angle for people with LBP) :SMD = 0.73 (0.09 to
1.35, p = 0.02), but not maximum posterior tilt angle:
SMD = 0.09 (-0.53 to 0.7, p = 0.78)).
Speed/Acceleration
Seven studies measured speed [34,37,39,43,50,71,75] and
one measured acceleration [28]. Data on lumbar flexion
speed/acceleratio n differences between groups with and
without LBP were combined in meta-analysis (Figure 9).
A large, significant effect of slower movement in the
Table 1 Quality assessment summary (see Additional files 2 and 5 for item decision rules and scores for each
included study)
Quality assessment domains Percentage of studies scoring yes
Selection bias
1. Was the study population adequately described? 57%
2. Where both groups drawn from the same population? 39%
3. Were both groups comparable for age, sex, BMI/weight 54%
4. Was pain intensity and/or activity limitation described for LBP group? 56%
5. Was an attempt made to define back pain characteristics? 34%
Measurement and outcome bias
6. Did the method description enable accurate replication of the measurement procedures 90%
7. Was the measurement instrument adequately described? 95%
8. Was a system for standardising movement instructions reported? 37%
9. Were assessors trained in standardised measurement procedure? 2%
10. Did the same assessors test those with and without back pain 17%
11. Were assessors blinded as to which group subjects were in? 0%
12. Was the same assessment procedure applied to those with and without back pain? 93%
Data presentation
13. Were between-group statistical comparisons reported for at least one key outcome 94%
Figure 2 Studies comparing lordosis in LBP versus NoLBP groups. Means & standard deviations (SD) are in degrees with the exception of
Day et al. [32] who used an algebraic computation based on linear measurement.
Laird et al. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2014, 15:229 Page 5 of 13
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/15/229
LBP group was evident (SMD -1.46 95% CI -1.96 to -1.02,
p < .01).
Proprioception
Fifteen studies [33,35,45,46,53,55,60,62-68,70,76] mea-
sured position/reposition accuracy as a measure of lumbar
spine proprioception (see Additional files 3, 4 and 6 for
details). Twelve studies [ 35,45,46,53,60,62-64,68-70,76]
measured absolute error in re-positioning accuracy and
were included in meta-analysis. One study measured
the number of trials required to ac hieve accurate re-
positioning [33], one mea sured motion detection, [55]
one measured ability t o achie ve a described position
[67] and two measured motion precision [65,66] but were
excluded from meta-analysis as data were not comparable.
A consistent, large and significant reduction in ability to
accurately re-position the spine at pre-specified angles for
people with LBP compared to those without LBP is shown
in Figure 10 (SMD = 1.04, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.45, p < 0.01).
The studies included in this review using different types of
assessments that precluded meta-analysis also found sig-
nificant differences indicating reduced proprioception in
the LBP group (26,55). Descarreaux et al. [33] tested if
LBP subjects (divided into two groups according to nor-
mal or slow speed of force production on isometric resist-
ance) compared to subjects without LBP, could accurately
place the lumbar spine into various flexion angles. They
determined that although both LBP and control groups
demonstrated similar re-positioning accuracy, the LBP
subgroup that developed slow isometric force (n = 9 of 16)
required significantly more practice to achie ve this
(SMD = 1.87, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.85, p < 0.01). Taimela et al.
[55] reported a significant reduction in the ability of
people with chronic LBP to detect change in lumbar pos-
ition when compared to a group without LBP but did not
include data on variability required for meta-analysis. Field
et al. [67] demonstrated reduced accuracy for people with
LBP in achieving a demonstrated position in flexion when
compared to people without LBP (SMD = 1.66, 95% CI
0.82 to 2.42, p < 0.01). Willigenberg et al. [65 ,66] also
identified reduced accuracy in both motion control,
(SMD = 1.14, 95% CI 0 .39 to 1.89, p < 0.01) and motion
tracking in people w ith LBP (SMD = 1.08, 95% CI 0.32
to 1.84, p < 0.01).
A summary of standardised mean differences, across
all the kinematic characteristics investigated, is shown in
Table 2.
Differences in variability between groups
Table 3 presents a summary of the within group variability
in movements pooled across studies. Significantly greater
variability for people with LBP compared t o people
Figure 3 Flexion ROM meta-analysis.
Figure 4 Extension ROM meta-analysis.
Laird et al. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2014, 15:229 Page 6 of 13
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/15/229
without LBP was observed on four of the eight measures:
flexion, lateral flexion, rotation and speed/acceleration.
Discussion
This review summarised the results of studies of lumbo-
pelvic kinematics for people with and without LBP. Al-
though the results will be unsurprising to most clinicians, it
is the first review to meta-analyse and quantify the clinical
observation that, on average, people with LBP have reduced
lumbar ROM, move more slowly and have r educed
proprioception compared to with those without LBP.
The review highlights the highly heterogenous nature
of available studies, with six of nine meta-analyses indi-
cating significant between study heterogeneity in results.
Possible sources of heterogeneity between study outcomes
include differences in definitions of back pain, control
characteristics, LBP intensity, and instruments and methods
for measuring movements. This heterogeneity confounds
secondary analyses such as the influence of pain intensity
on observed differences between people with and without
LBP.
The lack of detail or standardized definition for con-
trol subjects is also problematic. For example, it is hypo-
thetically possible that altere d movement characteristics
occur as a result of a LBP episode and persist after pain
resolves. If this is the case, people that were pain free
but with persistent altered movements, would have been
eligible as control subjects for many of the included
studies, provided the episode had been prior to the pain-
free time period required for that study. This would have
diluted differences between the groups. Similarly, it is
not known if certain aberrant movement characteristics
exist prior to the onset of LBP and are risk factors for an
episode of LBP, in which case these characteristics may
have also been present in people classified in the included
studies as control subjects.
No studies attempted to blind assessors to group type,
and a general absence of procedural standardization, such
as movement instruction or assessor consistency, exposes
studies to the potential for random or systematic error.
However, the relative consistency of the direction of re-
sults across studies adds credibility to the findings of this
review, and observed effects appear large enough to be
visible despite potential study limitations.
Lordosis
Lordosis angle does not differentiate people with and
without LBP. A similarly wide range of group means were
reported for those with LBP (2 to 56°) and without LBP
(19° to 53°). This variability might be associated with the
six different measurement methods, but may also reflect
biological differences in sample ethnicity [77], age [78]
and gender [49,57,58]. Increasing age has been associated
with reduced lordosis in the sixth decade [78-80] and
on average, females have a greater lordosis than males
[49,58,80]. Four studies included only males [31,32,38,47]
and it is perhaps understandable that these studies found
the four lowest average lordosis angles. However, t his
variability in lordosis appears similar for people with and
without LBP. Therefore, lumbar lordosis when measured
Figure 5 Lateral flexion ROM meta-analysis.
Figure 6 Rotation ROM meta-analysis.
Laird et al. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2014, 15:229 Page 7 of 13
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/15/229
using surface techniques, does not, on average, appear to
discriminate between people with and without LBP.
Range and speed of motion
Clinicians commonly use ROM [81] to assist in identifying
patterns of dysfunction, and to monitor change. ROM has
been extensively studied by invasive and non-invasive
methods, but non-invasive measurement is better suited
to routine clinical assessment. This review included 20
studies that compared ROM for those with and without
LBP using skin-surface measurement. The pooled sample
was large enough to be confident in the finding that
people with LBP have reduced average lumbar ROM com-
pared to those without LBP. The mean ROM reported for
people without LBP is so variable that it has little refer-
ence value e.g. (considering all studies) flexion: min = 23°,
max = 92°; extension: min = 15°, max = 56°, lateral flexion:
min = 3°, max = 44°; rotation: min = 3°, max = 62°. L arge
variations between studies suggest differences beyond
those explained by biological variation and implicate
method differences. Using flexion ROM as an example, 14
studies used nine different measurement devices ranging
in sophistication from simple handheld inclinometers and
flexible rulers to opto-electronic devices. Youdas [57,58]
used a flexible rule measurement technique (mean lumbar
flexion angle = 23 ± 10°) while Hidalgo [37] used an
opto-electronic system (92 ± 15°); both studies used
similar inclusion criteria , and the same s tarting position.
Other method processes may also contribute to differ-
ences: two studies assessed range in sitting, 10 in relaxed
standing, and two used some form of restricted movement
(harness or fixed pelvic position). Based on these findings,
normative data may have limited relevance to a clinical
environment unless the same measurement methods used
to obtain published data are also used in the clinical set-
ting where they are applied. The lack of clarity about
similarity between study populations and method details
makes the use of pooled group-level estimates of move-
ments, such as mean flexion ROM, unwise. However,
these between-study differences did not obscure consist-
ent within-study findings; eight of 14 studies of flexion
demonstrated significantly less lumbar flexion for those
with LBP and only one study found that lumbar flexion
was significantly greater for those with LBP. These find-
ings of large between study differences in measurements,
and consistent within study differences between those
with and without LBP, are similar for the other move-
ments analysed in this review.
Lower movement speed is commonly seen in people
with LBP, so it is unsurprising to observe in our review
that those with LBP demonstrated significantly slower
speeds when the eight included studies were pooled in
meta-analysis. Reduced speed of lumbar movement has
been linked to fear of movement and has also been
shown to persist after recovery [82].
Lumbar versus hip contribution to movement
Clinicians have reported assessing the relative contribu-
tion of lumbar and hip joints (during flexion and exten-
sion movements) to assist in determining subgroups
within the LBP population that require specific treatment
strategies [83,84]. This review identified six studies that
measured patterns and relative contributions to trunk
flexion from the lumbar spine and hip joints, often de-
scribed a s lumbo-pelvic rhythm . Data could be pooled
for four studies (six comparisons) e valuating ROM of
Figure 7 Meta-analysis of studies investigating the relative contributions of lumbar versus hip ROM through the range of trunk
flexion. Means (and SDs) are ratios of lumbar to hip movement. Zero represents equal lumbar to hip contribution to trunk flexion,
numbers <0 indicate less lumbar compared with hip movement while numbers >0 indicate more hip than lumbar movement.
Figure 8 Meta-analysis of studies comparing pelvic tilt angle in neutral standing.
Laird et al. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2014, 15:229 Page 8 of 13
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/15/229
lumbar and hip contribution at end-range flexion. A
typica l pattern of lumbar versus hip movement for both
groups showed less lumbar and greater hip ROM at end-
range flexion, with small, non-significant differences of re-
duced lumbar contribution for the LBP group when com-
pared to people without LBP.
However relative contributions of lumbar spine and
hip to ROM may be less important than patterns of
when and how movement takes place. Nelson-Wong et al.
[84] recently reported that the relative timing of hip and
lumbar movement when arising from a fully flexed pos-
ition differentiated between people who do or do not
develop back pain after two hours of standing. People
who developed pain used a lumbar > hip initiation of
movement (spine moves first followed by pelvic/hip
movement) strategy on arising fr om the flexed position
while non-pain developers used a hip > lumbar strategy
(p = 0.03). This finding is supported by McClure e t al.
[40], Esola et al. [34] and Porter et al. [52] who all reported
relatively greater lumbar through-range contribution in
people with LBP on flexion movement. It may be that
people with LBP can be subgrouped by lumbo-pelvic
rhythm. For example, Kim et al. [61] examined lumbo-
pelvic rhythm by comparing two subgroups of people with
LBP to a group of people without LBP. One subgroup had
pain provoked by flexion/rotation activities and the other
by extension/rotation activity. The flexion-aggravated group
had significantly greater lumbar contribution to flexion
compared to the normal and extension groups. The
extension-aggravated group on the other hand had a
significant pattern of reduced lumbar contribution to
flexion. Lumbar versus hip contributions to movement,
particularly flexion, appe ar to have clinical relevance
and warrant further exploration.
Pelvic tilt angle, position and range
Extreme (end-range) pelvic tilt angle in standing and sit-
ting has been linked to back pain [85,86] but with limited
evidence. Clinical interventions aiming to modify pelvic
tilt angle to achieve more neutral positions are based on
the assumption that there is a relationship between pos-
ition and pain. There are few studies that explore the rela-
tionship between LBP and typical pelvic tilt range (from
full anterior to full posterior tilt) and the relative position
of pelvic tilt angle during sitting and standing in people
with and without LBP. This review found no differences
when pooling data from three studies that compared
standing pelvic tilt angle in people with and without LBP.
Similarly, Astfalk et al. [85] found no differences in aver-
age lumbar flexion angle in sitting (reflecting pelvic tilt
position) when comparing adolescents with and without
LBP (125.3 ± 19.8° vs 130.6° ± 15.7 respectively). However
significant differences were observed for lumbar flexion
angle when adolescents with LBP were sub-grouped based
on direction of movement that provoked pain. The
flexion-provoked pain group had a significantly greater
Figure 9 Forest plot of speed differences between LBP and NoLBP groups (original units are deg/sec or deg/sec
2
).
Figure 10 Forest plot of position/reposition differences (raw scores in degrees) comparing LBP and NoLBP groups.
Laird et al. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2014, 15:229 Page 9 of 13
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/15/229
lumbar angle (135.6 ± 16.9°, p < 0.05) compared to those
without LBP while the extension-provoked pain group
had a significantly smaller lumbar angle (113.5 ± 16.3°, p <
0.05) when compared to those without LBP. Sub-grouping
of a LBP population based on the relationship of aggravat-
ing activities and direction of painful movement may dem-
onstrate associations between back pain and pelvic tilt
angle/relative position.
Proprioception
Our meta-analysis of studies measuring one aspect of
proprioception (absolute error during re-positioning trials)
demonstrated a significant and large loss of re-positioning
accuracy in the LBP group. The implications of reduced
proprioception are that people with LBP are less move-
ment-aware with potentially reduced postural control.
This is consistent with a recent systematic review on
another aspect of proprioception, postural sway, by Ruhe
et al. [17] who found that greater sway excursion and
speed were present in people with LBP compared to
people without back pain.
Differences in variability between peop le with and
without LBP
Our assessment of differences in vari ability between people
with and without LBP for nine movement characteristics
demonstrated significantly greater variab ility for four move-
ment characteristics: flexion, lateral flexion and rotation
ROM, and speed of movement. There were no significant
differences in variability for lordosis, extension ROM,
lumbar versus hip contribution to movement or proprio-
ception. It is not clear if the greater variability seen in the
LBP group is clinically meaningful (10% difference in aver-
age variability estimates) but it raises a question of
whether postures or activities performed using extremes
of certain movement (e.g. excessive or restricted move-
ment) may predispose people to LBP.
This review examined differences in group means for
people with and without LBP. Given the high variability
seen between studies, the small between-group differences
compared with the high within-group differences, and the
greater variability on some movement characteristics
seen in the LBP group, these findings cast some doubt
Table 2 Summary of pooled standardized mean differences
Position and movement differences between people with and
without LBP (number of studies included in meta-analysis)
Standardised mean difference (95% CI)
for all studies suitable for meta-analysis
Lordosis*, n = 8 0.01 (-0.09 to 0.11), p = 0.89
Flexion**, n = 14 -0.62 (-0.94 to -0.29), p < 0.01
Extension**, n = 9 -0.54 (-0.81 to -0.27), p < 0.01
Lateral Flexion**, n = 9 -0.73 (-1.14 to -0.33), p < 0.01
Rotation**, n = 9 -0.49 (-0.76 to -0.22), p = 0.04
Lumbar versus Hip end-range flexion ROM**, n = 4 -0.21 (-0.52 to 0.09), p = 0.17
Pelvic tilt angle in standing
, n = 3 0.24 (-0.03 to 0.50), p = 0.08
Speed/Acceleration
,n=8 -1.24 (-1.58 to -0.90), p < 0.0001
Proprioception (re-position accuracy)
§
, n = 12 1.04 (0.64 to 1.45), p < 0.0001
*Positive numbers indicate larger lordosis for the LBP group, **negative numbers indicate reduced ROM for the LBP group, positive numbers indicate larger
anterior tilt,
negative numbers indicate reduced speed of movement for the LBP group,
§
positive numbers indicate greater error rate in re-positioning
(reduced proprioception).
Table 3 Differences between the LBP and NoLBP in within-group variability on each movement characteristic and
ratios of n-weighted mean coefficients of variation
Movement Characteristic
(number of comparisons)
LBP group
coefficient of variation
N NoLBP group
coefficient of variation
n Ratio of coefficients
of variation (95% CI)
Lordosis angle (8) 33.1% 818 34.6% 745 0.96 (0.83 to 1.10)
Flexion ROM* (18) 35.1% 913 26.8% 778 1.31 (1.13 to 1.51)
Extension ROM (12) 41.5% 485 47.2% 515 0.88 (0.76 to 1.01)
Lateral flexion ROM (9) 52.6% 751 40.1% 614 1.31 (1.17 to 1.48)
Rotation ROM* (10) 34.3% 827 28.7% 590 1.20 (1.02 to 1.40)
Lumbar vs hip (6) 51.2% 111 42.8% 74 1.2 (0.87 to 1.65)
Speed/acceleration* (8) 54.7% 602 42.6% 475 1.28 (1.13 to 1.46)
Proprioception (13) 53.9% 435 53.2% 229 1.01 (0.87 to 1.18)
*Statistically significant differences (95% CIs > 1.0) are bolded.
Laird et al. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2014, 15:229 Page 10 of 13
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/15/229
on whether an assessment of movements without reference
to pain provides evidence of dysfunction at an individual
patient level. The results neither endorse nor disqualify
the role of movement assessment for (i) determining the
relationship between movement and p ain in individual
patients, or (ii) monitoring changes in movement charac-
teristics as a means of monitoring progress in individual
patients and as an indication of the likelihood of their im-
provement [87]. Key questions also remain, including (a)
are deficits such as reduced proprioception, reduced ROM
and speed of movement a result or a cause of LBP, and (b)
are these deficits present prior to the development of
LBP?
Strengths and limitations
The strengths of this system atic review are the compre-
hensive search, the breadth of the movement character-
istics included in the analysis, and that screening and
data extraction were independently performed by two
reviewers. In addition, the review only included studies
that assessed people with and without LBP using the
same within-study method, thereby removing method
differences as an explanation for obs erved within-study
differences.
The review also has limitations. We treated the data
for people with LBP as if they were measurement s of a
homogenous group. It is possible that sub-grouping by
using the relationship of pain to movement may increase
the clinical utility of particular measurements. The find-
ings in this review do not inform clinicians about whether
changes in ROM, movement speed or proprioception will
produce better outcomes, or if changes in movement
characteristics precede the onset of LBP or predispose to
future recurrences. In addition, due to an absence of
translation resources, only articles published in English
were included and this may introduce a language, cultural
and/or publication bias. To maximize the number of in-
cluded studies, we did not place any restrictions on the
criteria used to define pain cases versus pain-free controls.
However, our broad inclusion criteria are likely to have
weakened, rather than strengthened differences seen be-
tween people with and without LBP, and in the included
studies, higher pain intensities had a weak correlation with
increased differences between the these groups.
Conclusion
This paper systematically summarised what is known
about differences in measurements of lumbo-pelvic move-
ment for people with and without back pain. It included
43 studies and synthesised information on six movement
characteristics: lordosis, ROM, lumbar versus hip contri-
bution, pelvic tilt, speed and proprioception. The results
show that compared to people without pain, on average,
people with LBP display (i) no difference in their lordosis
angle (8 studies), (ii) a reduction of lumbar ROM in all di-
rections of movement (26 studies), (iii) no difference in
lumbar versus hip ROM contribution to full flexion (4
studies), (iv) no difference in pelvic tilt angle in standing
(3 studies), (v) slower lumbar movement (7 studies), and
(vi) poorer proprioception on position-reposition accuracy
(15 studies). There is greater movement variability for
people with LBP for flexion, lateral flexion and rotation
ROM, and speed of movement, but this is not apparent
for other movement characteristics. So put simply, when
considered collectively, people with LBP have reduced
lumbar ROM, move more slowly and have reduced pro-
prioception compared with people without low back pain.
Additional files
Additional file 1: Search strategy medline.
Additional file 2: Qual ity assessment.
Additional file 3: Categories of included studies.
Additional file 4: Characteristics of included studies.
Additional file 5: Qual ity assessment.
Additional file 6: Summary of studies examining lumbar
proprioception.
Abbreviations
LBP: Low back pain; ROM: Range of motion; SMD: Standardised mean
difference; NoLBP: People without low back pain.
Competing interests
No funding was received for this systematic review. No benefits in any form
have been, or will be, received from a commercial party related directly or
indirectly to the subject of this paper. This paper does not contain information
about medical devices or drugs. The authors do not hold stocks or shares in
any company that might be directly or indirectly affected by this review. No
patents have been applied for or received due to the content of this review.
There are no non-financial competing interests associated with this review.
Authors contributions
RL and JG contributed to data collection. RL and JG performed data inclusion and
extraction with JK providing arbitration when required. All authors were involved
in the design of the review, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting and
revision of the manuscript, and gave approval of the final manuscript.
Acknowledgements
None.
Author details
1
Department of Physiotherapy, Monash University, PO Box 527, Frankston,
VIC 3199, Australia.
2
Peak MSK Physiotherapy, Suite 4/544 Hampton St,
Hampton, VIC 3188, Australia.
3
Department of Sports Science and Clinical
Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Odense 5230, Denmark.
4
Research Department, Spine Centre of Southern Denmark, Lillebaelt
Hospital, Institute of Regional Health Services Research, University of
Southern Denmark, Middelfart 5500, Denmark.
5
7 Kerry Rd, Warranwood,
Melbourne, VIC 3134, Australia.
Received: 13 May 2014 Accepted: 1 July 2014
Published: 10 July 2014
References
1. Liebenson C: Rehabilitation of the spine: a practitioners manual. 2nd edition.
Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007.
2. Sahrmann S: Diagnosis and treatment of movement impairment syndromes.
St Louis: Mosby Inc; 2002.
Laird et al. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2014, 15:229 Page 11 of 13
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/15/229
3. McKenzie R, May S: Lumbar Spine, Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy. 2nd
edition. Waikanae, New Zealand: Spinal Publications Ltd; 2003.
4. Maitland GD: Vertebral Manipulation. 5th edition. London: Butterworths; 1986.
5. O'Sullivan PB: Diagnosis and classification of chronic low backpain
disorders: Maladaptive movement and motor control impairments as
underlying mechanism. Man Ther 2005, 10:242255.
6. Ikeda K, McGill S: Can altering motions, postures, and loads provide
immediate low back pain relief: A study of 4 cases investigating spine
load, posture, and stability. Spine 2012, 37(23):E1469E1475.
7. Chen SP, Samo DG, Chen EH, Crampton AR, Conrad KM, Egan L, Mitton J:
Reliability of three lumbar sagittal motion measurement methods:
surface inclinometers. J Occup Environ Med 1997, 39(3):217223.
8. Ha TH, Saber-Sheikh K, Moore AP, Jones MP: Measurement of lumbar spine
range of movement and coupled motion using inertial sensors - A
protocol validity study. Man Ther 2012, 18(1):8791.
9. Ribeiro DC, Sole G, Abbott JH, Milosavljevic S: Cumulative postural
exposure measured by a novel device: a preliminary study. Ergonomics
2011, 54(9):858865.
10. Van Hoof W, Volkaerts K, O'Sullivan K, Verschueren S, Dankaerts W:
Comparing lower lumbar kinematics in cyclists with low back pain
(flexion pattern) versus asymptomatic controls field study using a
wireless posture monitoring system. Man Ther 2012, 17(4):312317.
11. Mannion A, Troke M: A comparison of two motion analysis devices used
in the measurement of lumbar spinal mobility. Clin Biomech 1999,
14(9):612619.
12. Intolo P, Milosavljevic S, Baxter DG, Carman AB, Pal P, Munn J, Intolo P,
Milosavljevic S, Baxter DG, Carman AB, Pal P, Munn J: The effect of age on
lumbar range of motion: a systematic review. Man Ther 2009,
14(6):596604.
13. Milosavljevic S, Milburn PD, Knox BW: The influence of occupation on
lumbar sagittal motion and posture. Ergonomics 2005, 48(6):657667.
14. Russell P, Pearcy MJ, Unsworth A: Measurement of the range and coupled
movements observed in the lumbar spine. Rheumatology (Oxford) 1993,
32(6):490
497.
15. Fitzgerald G, Wynveen K, Rheault W, Rothschild B: Objective assessment
with establishment of normal values for lumbar spinal range of motion.
Phys Ther 1983, 63(11):17761781.
16. Schober P: The lumbar vertebral column and back ache. Munch Med
Wochenschr 1937, 84:336.
17. Ruhe A, Fejer R, Walker B: Center of pressure excursion as a measure of
balance performance in patients with non-specific low back pain
compared to healthy controls: a systematic review of the literature. Eur
Spine J 2011, 20(3):358368.
18. The NCBI Handbook (internet): 2nd edition. Betheseda (MD): National
Centre for Biotechnology Information (US); 2013. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/mesh.
19. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D: TPG: preferred reporting items
for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann
Intern Med 2009, 151(4):264269.
20. Hollingworth W, Medina S, Lenkinski R, Shibata D, Bernal B, Zurakowski D,
Comstock B, Jarvik J: Interrater reliability in assessing quality of diagnostic
accuracy studies using the QUADAS tool. Acad Radiol 2006, 13(7):803810.
21. Whiting PF, Weswood ME, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PN, Kleijnen J:
Evaluation of QUADAS, a tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic
accuracy studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006, 6(9). doi:10.1186/1471-2288-
1186-1189.
22. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glatsonis PP, Irwig LM,
Moher D, Rennie D, de Vet HC: Towards complete and accurate reporting
of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative. Radiology 2003,
226:2428.
23. Mieritz R, Bronfort G, Kawchuk G, Breen A, Hartvigsen J: Reliability and
measurement error of 3-dimensional regional lumbar motion measures:
a sytematic review. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2012, 35(8):645656.
24. The Cochrane Collaboration: Review Manager (RevMan) (computer
program). Version 5.2. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The
Cochrane Collaboration; 2012.
25. Higgins J, Green S: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of
Interventions, Version 5.1.0. In The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011. Available
from http://www.cochrane-handbook.org.
26. Higgins J, Thompson S, Deeks J, Altman DG: Measuring inconsistency in
meta-analyses. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 2003, 327(9):557560.
27. Koopmans L, Owen D, Rosenblatt J: Confidence intervals for the
coefficient of variation for the normal and log normal distributions.
Biometrika
1964, 51:2532.
28. Aluko A, DeSouza L, Peacock J: Evaluation of trunk acceleration in healthy
individuals and those with low back pain. Int J Ther Rehabil 2011, 18(1):1 825.
29. Barrett CJ, Singer KP, Day R: Assessment of combined movements of the
lumbar spine in asymptomatic and low back pain subjects using a
three-dimensional electromagnetic tracking system. Man Ther 1999,
4(2):9499.
30. Boline P, Keating J, Haas M, Anderson A: Interexaminer reliability and
discriminant validity of inclinometric measurement of lumbar rotation in
chronic low-back pain patients and subjects without low-back pain.
Spine 1992, 17(3):335338.
31. Christie HJ, Kumar S, Warren SA: Postural aberrations in low back pain.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1995, 76(3):218224.
32. Day JW, Smidt GL, Lehmann T: Effect of pelvic tilt on standing posture.
Phys Ther 1984, 64(4):510 516.
33. Descarreaux M, Blouin J-S, Teasdale N: Repositioning accuracy and
movement parameters in low back pain subjects and healthy control
subjects. Eur Spine J 2005, 14(2):185191.
34. Esola MA, McClure PW, Fitzgerald GK, Siegler S: Analysis of lumbar spine
and hip motion during forward bending in subjects with and without a
history of low back pain. Spine 1996, 21(1):7178.
35. Gill K, Callaghan M: The measurement of lumbar proprioception in
individuals with and without low back pain. Spine 1998, 23(3):371377.
36. Gomez TT: Symmetry of lumbar rotation and lateral flexion range of
motion and isometric strength in subjects with and without low back
pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1994, 19(1):4248.
37. Hidalgo B, Gilliaux M, Poncin W, Detrembleur C: Reliability and validity of a
kinematic spine model during active trunk movement in healthy
subjects and patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. J Rehabil
Med 2012, 44(9):756763.
38. Hultman G, Nordin M, Saraste H, Ohlsen H: Body composition, endurance,
strength, corss-sectional area, and desnity of MM erector spinae in men
with and without low back pain. J Spinal Disord 1993, 6:114123.
39. Marras W, PaParnianpour M, Ferguson S, Kim J, Crowell R, Bose S, Simon S:
The classification of anatomic- and symptom-based low back disorders
using motion measure models. Spine 1995, 20(23):25312546.
40. McClure P, Esola M, Schreier R, Siegler S: Kinematic analysis of lumbar and
hip motion while rising from a forward, flexed position in patients with
and without a history of low back pain. Spine 1997, 22(5):552558.
41. McGregor A, McCarthy I, Dore C, Hughes S: Quantitative assessment of the
motion of the lumbar spine in the low back pain population and the
effect of different spinal pathologies on this motion. Eur Spine J 1997,
6(5):308315.
42. McGregor A, McCarthy I, Hughes S: Motion characteristics of the lumbar
spine in the normal population. Spine 1995, 20(22):24212428.
43. McGregor AH, Hughes SP: The effect of test speed on the motion
characteristics of the lumbar spine during an A-P flexion-extension test.
J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 2000, 14(3):99104.
44. Mellin G: Decreased joint and spinal mobility associated with low back
pain in young adults. J Spinal Disord 1990, 3(3):238243.
45. Newcomer K, Laskowski E, Yu B, Larson D, An K: Repositioning error in low
back pain: Comparing trunk repositioning error in subjects with chronic
low back pain and control subjects. Spine 2000, 25(2):245250.
46. Newcomer KL, Laskowski ER, Yu B, Johnson JC, An KN: Differences in
repositioning error among patients with low back pain compared with
control subjects. Spine 2000, 25(19):24882493.
47. Ng JK, Richardson CA, Kippers V, Parnianpour M, Ng JKF, Richardson CA,
Kippers V, Parnianpour M: Comparison of lumbar range of movement and
lumbar lordosis in back pain patients and matched controls. J Rehabil
Med 2002, 34(3):109113.
48. Norton B, Sahrmann S, Van DL: Differences in Measurements of Lumbar
Curvature Related to Gender and Low Back Pain. J Orthop Sports Phys
Ther 2004, 34(9):524534.
49. Nourbakhsh MR, Moussavi SJ, Salavati M: Effects of lifestyle and work-related
physical activity on the degree of lumbar lordosis and chronic low back
pain in a Middle East population. J Spinal Disord 2001, 14(4):283292.
50. Paquet N, Malouin F, Richards C: Hip-spine movement interaction and
muscle activation patterns during sagittal trunk movements in low back
pain patients. Spine 1994, 15(5):596603.
Laird et al. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2014, 15:229 Page 12 of 13
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/15/229
51. Pope M, Bevins T, Wilder D, Frymoyer J: The relationship between
anthropometric postural, muscular, and mobility characteristics of males
aged 18-55. Spine 1985, 10:644648.
52. Porter JL, Wilkinson A: Lumbar-hip flexion motion. A comparative study
between asymptomatic and chronic low back pain in 18- to 36-year-old
men. Spine 1997, 22(13):15081513. discussion 1513-1504.
53. Sheeran L, Sparkes V, Caterson B, Busse-Morris M, van Deursen R: Spinal position
sense and trunk muscle activity during sitting and standing in nonspecific
chronic low back pain: classification analysis. Spine 2012, 37(8):E486E495.
54. Sung PS, Park W-H, Kim YH: Three-dimensional kinematic lumbar spine
motion analyses of trunk motion during axial rotation activities. J Spinal
Disord Tech 2012, 25(3):E74E80.
55. Taimela S, Kankaanpaa M, Luoto S: The effect of lumbar fatigue on the
ability to sense a change in lumbar position. A controlled study. Spine
1999, 24(13):13221327.
56. Waddell G, Somerville D, Henderson I, Newton M: Objective clinical
evaluation of physical impairment in chronic low back pain. Spine 1992,
17(6):617628.
57. Youdas JW, Garrett TR, Egan KS, Therneau TM: Lumbar lordosis and pelvic
inclination in adult s with chronic low back pain. Phys Ther 2000, 80(3): 261275.
58. Youdas JW, Garrett TR, Harmsen S, Suman VJ, Carey JR: Lumbar lordosis
and pelvic inclination of asymptomatic adults. Phys Ther 1996,
76(10):10661081 (1030 ref).
59. Crosbie J, de Faria Negrao FilhoR,NascimentoDP,FerreiraP:Coordination of
spinal motion in the transverse and frontal planes during walking in people
with and without recurrent low back pain. Spine 2013, 38(5):E286E292.
60. Hidalgo B, Gobert F, Bragard D, Detrembleur C: Effects of proprioceptive
disruption on lumbar spine repositioning error in a trunk forward
bending task. J Back Musculoskel Rehabil 2013, 26(4):381387.
61. Kim MH, Yi CH, Kwon OY, Cho SH, Cynn HS, Kim YH, Hwang SH, Choi BR,
Hong JA, Jung DH: Comparison of lumbopelvic rhythm and flexion-
relaxation response between 2 different low back pain subtypes. Spine
2013,
38(15):12601267.
62. Lee AS, Cholewicki J, Reeves NP, Zazulak BT, Mysliwiec LW: Comparison of
trunk proprioception between patients with low back pain and healthy
controls. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010, 91(9):13271331.
63. O'Sullivan K, Verschueren S, Van Hoof W, Ertanir F, Martens L, Dankaerts W:
Lumbar repositioning error in sitting: Healthy controls versus people
with sitting-related non-specific chronic low back pain (flexion pattern).
Man Ther 2013, 18(6):526532.
64. O'Sullivan PB, Burnett A, Floyd AN, Gadsdon K, Logiudice J, Miller D, Quirke
H: Lumbar repositioning deficit in a specific low back pain population.
Spine 2003, 28(10):10741079.
65. Willigenburg NW, Kingma I, Hoozemans MJM, van Dieen JH: Precision
control of trunk movement in low back pain patients. Hum Mov Sci 2013,
32(1):228239.
66. Willigenburg NW, Kingma I, van Dieen JH: Precision control of an upright
trunk posture in low back pain patients. Clin Biomech 2012, 27(9):866871.
67. Field E, Abdel-Moty E, Loudon J: The effect of back injury and load on
ability to replicate a novel posture. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 1997,
8(3):199207.
68. Koumantakis GA, Winstanley J, Oldham JA: Thoracolumbar proprioception
in individuals with and without low back pain: intratester reliability,
clinical applicability, and validity. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2002,
32(7):327335.
69. Tsai Y, Sell T, Smoliga J, Myers J, Learman K, Lephart S: A compariso n of physical
characteristics and swing mechanics between golfers with and without a
history of low back pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2010, 40(7):430438.
70. Georgy E: Lumbar repositioning accuracy as a measure of proprioception
in patients with back dysfunction and healthy controls. Asian Spine J
2011, 5(4):201207.
71. Wong TK, Lee RY, Wong TKT, Lee RYW: Effects of low back pain on the
relationship between the movements of the lumbar spine and hip.
Hum Mov Sci 2004, 23(1):2134.
72. Brumagne S, Cordo P, Lysens R, Verschueren S, Swinnen S: The role of
paraspinal muscle spindles in lumbosacral position sense in individuals
with and without low back pain. Spine 2000, 25(8):989
994.
73. Spitzer W, Arsenault S, Abenhaim L, Dupuis M, Belanger A, Bloch R,
Bombardier C, Cruess R, Duval-Hesler N, Laflamme J, Lamoureux G, LeBlanc
F, Nachemson A, Wood-Dauphinee S, Drouin G, Page J, Lortie M, Suissa S,
Salmi LR, Rossignol M, Bilodeau D, Blain J: Quebec Task Force on spinal
disorders - Scientific approach to the assessment and management of
activity-related spinal disorders - a monograph for clinicians. Spine 1987,
12(7):159.
74. Marin-Martines F, Sanchez-Meca J: Averaging dependent effect sizes in
meta-analysis: a coutionary note about procedures. Span J Psychol 1999,
2(1):3238.
75. McGregor A, McCarthy I, Hughes S: Lumbar spine motion during freestyle
lifting and changes in this motion with time. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil
1997, 9(1):3537.
76. Brumagne S, Lysens R, Spaepen A: Lumbosacral repositioning accuracy in
standing posture: a combined electrogoniometric and videographic
evaluation. Clin Biomech 1999, 14(5):361363.
77. Mosner EA, Bryan JM, Stull MA, Shippee R: A comparison of actual and
apparent lumbar lordosis in black and white adult females. Spine 1989,
14(3):310314.
78. Gelb D, Lenke L, Bridwell K, Blanke K, McEnery K: An analysis of sagittal
spinal alignment in 100 asymptomatic middle and older aged
volunteers. Spine 1995, 20(12):13511358.
79. Adams MA, Bogduk N, Burton K, Dolan P: The Biomechanics of Back Pain. 3rd
edition. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingston; 2012.
80. Amonoo-Kuofi H: Changes in the lumbosacral angle, sacral inclination
and the curvature of the lumbar spine during aging. Acta Antatomica
1992, 145:373377.
81. Kent PM, Keating JL, Taylor NF: Primary care clinicians use variable
methods to assess acute nonspecific low back pain and usually focus on
impairments. Man Ther 2009, 14(1):88100.
82. Thomas JS, France CR, Lavender SA, Johnson MR: Effects of fear of
movement on spine velocity and acceleration after recovery from low
back pain. Spine 2008, 33:564570.
83. O'Sullivan PB: Clinical instability of the lumbar spine: its pathological
basis, diagnosis and conservative management. In Grieve
s Modern Manual
Therapy - The Vertebral Column. 3rd edition. Edited by Boyling J, Jull G.
Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2005.
84. Nelson-Wong E, Brendon A, Csepe D, Lancaster D, Callaghan JP: Altered
muscle recruitment during extension from trunk flexion in low back pain
developers. Clin Biomech 2012, 27:994998.
85. Astfalck RG, O'Sullivan PB, Straker LM, Smith AJ, Burnett A, Caneiro JP,
Dankaerts W: Sitting postures and trunk muscle activity in adolescents
with and without nonspecific chronic low back pain: an analysis based
on subclassification. Spine 2010, 35(14):13871395.
86. O'Sullivan PB, Mitchell T, Bulich P, Waller R, Holte J: The relationship
beween posture and back muscle endurance in industrial workers with
flexion-related low back pain. Man Ther 2006, 11(4):264271.
87. Hahne AJ, Keating JL, Wilson SC: Do within-session changes in pain inten-
sity and range of motion predict between-session changes in patients
with low back pain? J Physiother 2004, 50(1):1723.
doi:10.1186/1471-2474-15-229
Cite this article as: Laird et al.: Comparing lumbo-pelvic kinema tics in
people with and without back pain: a systematic review and
meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2 014 15:229.
Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central
and take full advantage of:
Convenient online submission
Thorough peer review
No space constraints or color figure charges
Immediate publication on acceptance
Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Scholar
Research which is freely available for redistribution
Submit your manuscript at
www.biomedcentral.com/submit
Laird et al. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2014, 15:229 Page 13 of 13
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/15/229
... The role of movement in the development or persistence of LBP remains unclear [3]. There is evidence that people with LBP move differently from people without LBP, with changes such as increased muscle activity (guarding), slower movement and reduced range of movement at the lumbar spine, hip and knee joints previously reported in laboratory settings [4][5][6][7][8]. Reliably and validly measuring lumbar movement in real-life settings has the potential to improve knowledge about the relationship between LBP and movement [9]. ...
... Clinicians commonly assess movement with visual analysis to identify patterns of dysfunction and to monitor change [5,37]. However, visual assessment of movement quality has been shown to vary amongst physiotherapists with differing clinical experience [38], and may only be accurate for changes of 12 degrees or more of movement range in single-please, low-speed movements [39]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background Wearable sensor technology may allow accurate monitoring of spine movement outside a clinical setting. The concurrent validity of wearable sensors during multiplane tasks, such as lifting, is unknown. This study assessed DorsaVi Version 6 sensors for their concurrent validity with the Vicon motion analysis system for measuring lumbar flexion during lifting. Methods Twelve participants (nine with, and three without back pain) wore sensors on T12 and S2 spinal levels with Vicon surface markers attached to those sensors. Participants performed 5 symmetrical (lifting from front) and 20 asymmetrical lifts (alternate lifting from left and right). The global-T12-angle, global-S2-angle and the angle between these two sensors (relative-lumbar-angle) were output in the sagittal plane. Agreement between systems was determined through-range and at peak flexion, using multilevel mixed-effects regression models to calculate root mean square errors and standard deviation. Mean differences and limits of agreement for peak flexion were calculated using the Bland Altman method. Results For through-range measures of symmetrical lifts, root mean squared errors (standard deviation) were 0.86° (0.78) at global-T12-angle, 0.90° (0.84) at global-S2-angle and 1.34° (1.25) at relative-lumbar-angle. For through-range measures of asymmetrical lifts, root mean squared errors (standard deviation) were 1.84° (1.58) at global-T12-angle, 1.90° (1.65) at global-S2-angle and 1.70° (1.54) at relative-lumbar-angle. The mean difference (95% limit of agreement) for peak flexion of symmetrical lifts, was − 0.90° (-6.80 to 5.00) for global-T12-angle, 0.60° (-2.16 to 3.36) for global-S2-angle and − 1.20° (-8.06 to 5.67) for relative-lumbar-angle. The mean difference (95% limit of agreement) for peak flexion of asymmetrical lifts was − 1.59° (-8.66 to 5.48) for global-T12-angle, -0.60° (-7.00 to 5.79) for global-S2-angle and − 0.84° (-8.55 to 6.88) for relative-lumbar-angle. Conclusion The root means squared errors were slightly better for symmetrical lifts than they were for asymmetrical lifts. Mean differences and 95% limits of agreement showed variability across lift types. However, the root mean squared errors for all lifts were better than previous research and below clinically acceptable thresholds. This research supports the use of lumbar flexion measurements from these inertial measurement units in populations with low back pain, where multi-plane lifting movements are assessed.
... To ensure application of valid and thorough biomechanical technique and analysis, data had to include at least one temporospatial, joint kinematic or joint kinetic outcome measure for individual legs (see online supplemental appendix 1 for a full list of extracted outcome measures). Outcome variables were determined from previous reviews that outlined biomechanical differences between: amputees and non-amputee populations 12 17 22 23 28 33 35 ; healthy nonamputee populations and KOA and LBP non-amputee populations [36][37][38] ; and healthy amputees and amputees with KOA and LBP. 12 16 18 31 32 While ground reaction force (GRF) outcome measures for individual strides were extracted, studies that only reported GRF measures were not included in this review, as GRF is a measure of full body force and is not specific to the knee joint or lower back region. Observational studies had to be performed during walking on flat, incline or stair surfaces, at either preferred or controlled walking speeds. ...
Article
Full-text available
Introduction There is a limited research exploring biomechanical risk factors for the development of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) and lower back pain (LBP) between lower limb amputee subgroups, (eg, transtibial amputees (TTA) vs transfemoral amputees (TFA), or TTA dysvascular vs TTA traumatic). Previous reviews have focused primarily on studies where symptoms of KOA or LBP are present, however, due to limited study numbers, this hinders their scope and ability to compare between amputee subgroups. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to descriptively compare biomechanical risk factors for developing KOA and LBP between lower limb amputee subgroups, irrespective of whether KOA or LBP was present. Methods and analysis This review is currently in progress and screening results are presented alongside the protocol to highlight challenges encountered during data extraction. Five electronic databases were searched (Medline—Web of Science, PubMed, CINAHL, Embase and Scopus). Eligible studies were observational or interventional, reporting biomechanical gait outcomes for individual legs in adult lower limb amputees during flat walking, incline/decline walking or stair ascent/descent. Two reviewers screened for eligibility and level of agreement was assessed using Cohen’s Kappa. Data extraction is ongoing. Risk of bias will be assessed using a modified Downs and Black method, and outcome measures will be descriptively synthesised. Ethics and dissemination There are no ethical considerations for this systematic review. Due to its scope, results are expected to be published in three separate manuscripts: (1) biomechanical risk factors of KOA between TTA and TFA, relative to non-amputees, (2) biomechanical risk factors of LBP between TTA and TFA, relative to non-amputees and (3) biomechanical risk factors of KOA and LBP between TTA with traumatic or dysvascular causes, relative to non-amputees. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020158247.
... As one of the most frequent movements of the lumbar spine in daily life, spinal flexion and extension can reflect the severity of the patients' condition to a certain extent [28]. The more severe the disease, the smaller is the range of motion (ROM) of the lumbar spine. ...
Article
Objective: To investigate the effect of traditional Chinese manual therapy (TCMT) in alleviating pain and dysfunction in patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Methods: Sixty-six patients with LDH were recruited as the study cohort and randomly assigned to an observation group and a control group. The patients in the observation group underwent TCMT, whereas those in the control group underwent conventional lumbar traction (LT). The observed indexes comprised primary index, which referred to clinical efficacy, and secondary indexes, which include Simplified McGill Pain Questionnaire, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), range of motion (ROM) of the lumbar spine, difference in muscle tone (MT) and pressure pain threshold (PPT) of the bilateral erector spinae, and serum inflammatory factor levels. Results: The total effective rate was significantly higher in the observation group than in the control group (96.67% vs. 66.67%, P < 0.001). Compared with the control group after treatment, patients in the observation group had significantly lower ODI, pain rating index, visual analog scale and present pain intensity scores (all P < 0.05), and had significantly smaller differences in MT and PPT of the bilateral erector spinae (both P < 0.001), but had remarkably greater ROM of the lumbar spine (P < 0.001). In addition, interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, and interferon-γ concentrations in the observation group were significantly lower than those in the control group after treatment (all P < 0.05). Conclusion: TCMT has positive effects on alleviating pain and improving dysfunction of patients with LDH and helps in reducing serum inflammatory factor levels.
... The maximum angle was assessed for lateral flexion as well as anterior flexion and axial rotation of each segment [36,37]. The MA was measured as the maximum angle in all three planes while performing a maximum right-/ left-sided lateral flexion described with good to excellent reliability [38]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background: Improving movement control might be a promising treatment goal during chronic non-specific low back pain (CLBP) rehabilitation. The objective of the study is to evaluate the effect of a single bout of game-based real-time feedback intervention on trunk movement in patients with CLBP. Methods: Thirteen CLBP patients (8female;41 ± 16 years;173 ± 10 cm;78 ± 22 kg) were included in this randomized cross-over pilot trial. During one laboratory session (2 h), participants performed three identical measurements on trunk movement all including: first, maximum angle of lateral flexion was assessed. Secondly, a target trunk lateral flexion (angle: 20°) was performed. Main outcome was maximum angle ([°]; MA). Secondary outcomes were deviation [°] from the target angle (angle reproduction; AR) and MA of the secondary movement planes (rotation; extension/flexion) during lateral flexion. The outcomes were assessed by an optical 3D-motion-capture-system (2-segment-trunk-model). The measurements were separated by 12-min of intervention and/or resting (randomly). The intervention involved a sensor-based trunk exergame (guiding an avatar through virtual worlds). After carryover effect-analysis, pre-to-post intervention data were pooled between the two sequences followed by analyses of variances (paired t-test). Results: No significant change from pre to post intervention for MA or AR for any segment occurred for the main movement plane, lateral flexion (p > .05). The upper trunk segment showed a significant decrease of the MA for trunk extension/flexion from pre to post intervention ((4.4° ± 4.4° (95% CI 7.06-1.75)/3.5° ± 1.29° (95% CI 6.22-0.80); p = 0.02, d = 0.20). Conclusions: A single bout of game-based real-time feedback intervention lead to changes in the secondary movement planes indicating reduced evasive motion during trunk movement. Trial registration no: DRKS00029765 (date of registration 27.07.2022). Retrospectively registered in the German Clinical Trial Register.
... Surprisingly, in male tennis players, the athletes with LBP history had higher lateral flexion RoM. Although our results in basketball players indicated that poor lateral flexion RoM could be particularly problematic, a quantitative synthesis of 19 case-control studies showed similar associations with LBP for flexion, extension and lateral flexion RoM in the general population (Laird, Gilbert, Kent, & Keating, 2014). ...
Article
The role of trunk strength and range of motion (RoM) in low back pain (LBP) risk in athletes is still unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare trunk muscle strength and RoM in adolescent athletes with and without LBP (total n = 381; age = 16.5 ± 2.1 years). The participants included basketball, soccer and tennis players who currently participate in normal training/competition regimen, have regularly participated in training for > 3 years (mean: 7.2 ± 3.2 years) and perform at least 4 training sessions in their sport per week (mean: 6.1 ± 1.2 sessions/week). The participants performed isometric trunk extension, flexion and lateral flexion strength assessments, as well as RoM tests (Schober’s test, lateral flexion RoM) and reported the 1‑year LBP history. Female basketball players with LBP history had lower lateral flexion RoM than their LBP-free counterparts (relative difference = 11.3–12.7%; p = 0.022–0.043), while the opposite was the case in the male tennis subgroup (relative difference = 9.7–14.1%; p = 0.027–0.032). Trunk flexion RoM was 24–28% greater in athletes with LPB cases that required absence from training/competition in female subgroups (p = 0.018–0.23). In male tennis players, absolute and body-mass-normalized trunk extension strength were 51–63% lower in athletes with LPB cases that required absence from the training and competition (p = 0.016–0.027). Further prospective studies are needed, as our study could not clearly elucidate the effect of trunk strength and RoM on LBP risk in adolescent athletes.
... 36 Por otro lado, la evidencia muestra que durante las tareas funcionales, los pacientes con dolor lumbar activan los músculos del tronco más que los sujetos sin dolor. 37,38 Incluso, la presencia de mayores niveles de miedo a las creencias de movimiento se ha asociado con una mayor activación muscular. 39 Esta situación es interpretada como un comportamiento protector asociado con menor velocidad de movimiento, menor rango de movimiento y mayor discapacidad. ...
Article
Objetivo: Identificar las creencias de los deportistas acerca del dolor lumbar. Como objetivo secundario, proponemos averiguar si las creencias reportadas difieren según la experiencia del dolor lumbar. Materiales y método: Estudio transversal tipo encuesta. Se invitó a atletas (recreacionales, amateurs y profesionales), mayores de 18 años con o sin dolor lumbar, a participar de una encuesta online a través de las redes sociales. Se utilizó el cuestionario Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire (Back-PAQ) para evaluar las creencias sobre la espalda. Las opciones de las preguntas del Back-PAQ fueron clasificadas como “positivas”, “neutras” o “negativas”. Resultados: Un total de 1591 respuestas fueron incluidas en el análisis. La media del puntaje total del Back-PAQ fue 113,1 (Intervalo de Confianza 95%, 112,5 - 113,7) con un puntaje mínimo de 63 y máximo de 148. No se encontraron diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre los grupos observados (p= 0,51). Los atletas con dolor actual tuvieron creencias menos útiles que aquellos con historia de dolor lumbar: mediana de 115 (rango intercuartílico 108 - 121) versus 113 (rango intercuartílico 105 - 120); p= 0,002. Conclusión: Los atletas presentaron creencias predominantemente negativas sobre el dolor de espalda, independientemente del nivel de competencia. Prevalecieron los conceptos erróneos sobre la vulnerabilidad de la espalda y la necesidad de protegerla. Se expresaron creencias positivas sobre el pronóstico de un episodio de dolor lumbar.
... 14 This behavioral response can be manifested as a protective response, restricting movement, as shown in previous studies, in which people with low back pain moved more slowly, with greater stiffness and muscle activity, which could justify postural hypervigilance. 15 There is evidence that these behavioral responses perpetuate the pain and disability generated by it. Also, a pronociceptive response generates an increase in tissue load, increasing the experience of pain and feeding a vicious cycle of avoidance due to fear, 16 generating a picture of greater pain and deficiency. ...
Article
Full-text available
Objectives To verify if there is a difference in postural hypervigilance in sitting in individuals with and without low back pain. Additionally, to observe whether there is a difference in the perception of correct sitting posture between individuals with low back pain and without low back pain. Methods The present study has a cross-sectional observational design, as a sample size of 92 individuals, later divided equally into two groups (with low back pain and without low back pain). Two instruments were used: the hypervigilance scale to analyze the frequency that volunteers correct their sitting posture during the day, and posture scans to investigate the perception of volunteers about the correct sitting posture. The data were submitted to the Shapiro-Wilk Normality test. To compare the values of Hypervigilance Scale, the Mann-Whitney, Chi-Square, and Fisher Exact tests were used to assess correct sitting posture. Results There was no significant difference between postural hypervigilance in sitting between individuals with low back pain and without low back pain. There was no significant difference between the choice of correct sitting posture between the group of individuals with and without low back pain. Conclusion There is no difference between the choice of correct sitting posture and the amount of postural hypervigilance in individuals with or without low back pain.
... Although lifting with the legs was traditionally considered to be a safer lifting technique, this has been disputed in several studies [5,6]. Lifting movements can vary considerably between individuals depending on factors such as hamstring tightness and movement speed-both of which have been demonstrated in people with CLBP or in risk factors for CLBP [7][8][9]. Therefore, dichotomous classification of lifting techniques may not be appropriate in people with CLBP. It is currently unknown how many different lifting techniques people with CLBP would demonstrate. ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper proposes an innovative methodology for finding how many lifting techniques people with chronic low back pain (CLBP) can demonstrate with camera data collected from 115 participants. The system employs a feature extraction algorithm to calculate the knee, trunk and hip range of motion in the sagittal plane, Ward’s method, a combination of K-means and Ensemble clustering method for classification algorithm, and Bayesian neural network to validate the result of Ward’s method and the combination of K-means and Ensemble clustering method. The classification results and effect size show that Ward clustering is the optimal method where precision and recall percentages of all clusters are above 90, and the overall accuracy of the Bayesian Neural Network is 97.9%. The statistical analysis reported a significant difference in the range of motion of the knee, hip and trunk between each cluster, F (9, 1136) = 195.67, p < 0.0001. The results of this study suggest that there are four different lifting techniques in people with CLBP. Additionally, the results show that even though the clusters demonstrated similar pain levels, one of the clusters, which uses the least amount of trunk and the most knee movement, demonstrates the lowest pain self-efficacy.
Article
Full-text available
Objective: Biomechanics represents the common final output through which all biopsychosocial constructs of back pain must pass, making it a rich target for phenotyping. To exploit this feature, several sites within the NIH Back Pain Consortium (BACPAC) have developed biomechanics measurement and phenotyping tools. The overall aims of this paper were to: 1) provide a narrative review of biomechanics as a phenotyping tool; 2) describe the diverse array of tools and outcome measures that exist within BACPAC; and 3) highlight how leveraging these technologies with the other data collected within BACPAC may elucidate the relationship between biomechanics and other metrics used to characterize low back pain (LBP). Methods: The narrative review highlights how biomechanical outcomes can discriminate between those with and without LBP, as well as the severity of LBP. It also addresses how biomechanical outcomes track with functional improvements in LBP. Additionally, we present the clinical use case for biomechanical outcome measures that can be met via emerging technologies. Results: To answer the need of measuring biomechanical performance our results section describes the spectrum of technologies that have been developed and are being used within BACPAC. Conclusion: and future directions: The outcome measures collected by these technologies will be an integral part of longitudinal and cross-sectional studies conducted in BACPAC. Linking these measures with other biopsychosocial data collected within BACPAC increases our potential to use biomechanics as a tool for understanding the mechanisms of LBP, phenotyping unique LBP subgroups, and matching these individuals with an appropriate treatment paradigm.
Article
Full-text available
Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.
Article
Background: Diagnoses and treatments based on movement system impairment syndromes were developed to guide physical therapy treatment. Objectives: This masterclass aims to describe the concepts on that are the basis of the syndromes and treatment and to provide the current research on movement system impairment syndromes. Results: The conceptual basis of the movement system impairment syndromes is that sustained alignment in a non-ideal position and repeated movements in a specific direction are thought to be associated with several musculoskeletal conditions. Classification into movement system impairment syndromes and treatment has been described for all body regions. The classification involves interpreting data from standardized tests of alignments and movements. Treatment is based on correcting the impaired alignment and movement patterns as well as correcting the tissue adaptations associated with the impaired alignment and movement patterns. The reliability and validity of movement system impairment syndromes have been partially tested. Although several case reports involving treatment using the movement system impairment syndromes concept have been published, efficacy of treatment based on movement system impairment syndromes has not been tested in randomized controlled trials, except in people with chronic low back pain.
Article
Study Design. A radiographic evaluation of 100 adult volunteers over age 40 and without a history of significant spinal abnormality was done to determine indices of sagittal spinal alignment. Objectives. To determine the sagittal contours of the spine in a population of adults older than previously reported in the literature and to correlate age and overall sagittal balance to other measures of segmental spinal alignment. Summary of Background Data. Previous studies of sagittal alignment have focused on adolescent and young adult populations before the onset of degenerative changes that may affect sagittal alignment. Methods. Radiographic measurements were collected and subjected to statistical analysis. Results. Mean sagittal vertical axis fell 3.2 +/- 3.2 cm behind the front of the sacrum. Total lumbar lordosis (T12-S1) averaged -64[degrees] +/- 10[degrees]. Lordosis increased incrementally with distal progression through the lumbar spine. Lordosis at L5-S1 and the position of the apices of the thoracic and lumbar curves were most closely correlated to sagittal vertical axis. Increasing age correlated to a more forward sagittal vertical axis with loss of distal lumbar lordosis but without an increase in thoracic or thoracolumbar kyphosis. Conclusions. The majority of asymptomatic individuals are able to maintain their sagittal alignment despite advancing age. Loss of distal lumbar lordosis is most responsible for sagittal imbalance in those individuals who do not maintain sagittal alignment. Spinal fusion for deformity should take into account the anticipated loss of lordosis that may occur with age.
Article
Augustine Aluko, Lorraine DeSouza, Janet Peacock Aims: The aim of this study was to investigate trunk acceleration as a measure of performance in both healthy individuals and those with low back pain (LBP). The study explored the difference in behaviour of trunk acceleration during flexion-extension movements between these two groups. This study investigated the test-retest reliability of the Lumbar Motion Monitor (LMM) using a single task protocol. Methods: Trunk acceleration of a group of healthy participants (M = 5, F = 5) and a group of participants with LBP (M = 4, F = 6) was evaluated using the LMM. Two sets of measurements were obtained from participants performing trunk flexion-extension movements for 8 seconds. Each participant had a 10 minute rest period between measures. Data were analysed using a two-way mixed model for an intra-class correlation (ICC) analysis to investigate the reliability of the measure, and a Bland-Altman graph was used to demonstrate the levels of agreement between those repeated measures. Results: The LBP group of participants demonstrated a slower three dimensional performance than the healthy group. The ICC for average sagittal acceleration (0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90-0.98) and peak sagittal acceleration (0.89, 95% CI 0.75-0.96) with a 95% limit of agreement for the repeated measures of between -100.64 and +59.84 degrees/s ² demonstrates the reliability of the measure. The higher ICC and its narrow confidence interval suggest that average rather than peak acceleration is more reliable. Within group measures for both the healthy and LBP groups demonstrated similar reliability for average acceleration (ICC 0.98, 95% CI 0.92-0.99) and for peak acceleration (healthy group ICC 0.94, CI 0.76-0.99; LBP group ICC 0.92, 95% CI 0.67-0.98). Conclusions: Low back pain may reduce trunk acceleration. The LMM may be used to measure trunk acceleration as a descriptor of trunk performance in response to an onset of LBP. However, the Bland-Altman limits suggest that its reliability is dependent upon the harness upon which the LMM is secured remaining in a fixed position.