Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16365784›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of applied physiology2006

The role of back muscle endurance, maximum force, balance and trunk rotation control regarding lifting capacity.

Peter Schenk, Andreas Klipstein, Susanne Spillmann, Jesper Strøyer, Thomas Laubli

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of applied physiology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Factors explaining improvement of isoinertial lifting-capacity.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2007
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Symptomatology of recurrent low back pain in nursing and administrative professions.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2007
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Peter SchenkInstitute of Hygiene and Applied Physiology, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, Switzerland. schenk@iha.bepr.ethz.ch
Andreas Klipstein
Susanne Spillmann
Jesper Strøyer
Thomas Laubli

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evaluation of lifting capacity is widely used as a reliable instrument in order to evaluate maximal and safe lifting capacity. This is of importance in regard to planning rehabilitation programs and determining working ability. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of basic functions on the lifting capacity measured by the progressive isoinertial lifting evaluation (PILE) and the functional capacity evaluation (FCE) tests in a lower (floor to waist) and an upper (waist to shoulder) setting and compare the two test constructs. Seventy-four female subjects without acute low back pain underwent an examination of their lifting capacities and the following basic functions: (1) strength and endurance of trunk muscles, (2) cardiovascular endurance, (3) trunk mobility and (4) coordination ability. A linear regression model was used to predict lifting capacity by means of the above-mentioned basic functions, where the F statistics of the variables had to be significant at the 0.05 level to remain in the model. Maximal force in flexion showed significant influence on the lifting capacity in both the PILE and the FCE in the lower, as well as in the upper, lifting task. Furthermore, there was a significant influence of cardiovascular endurance on the lower PILE and also of endurance in trunk flexion on the lower FCE. Additional inclusion of individual factors (age, height, weight, body mass index) into the regression model showed a highly significant association between body height and all lifting tasks. The r (2) of the original model used was 0.19/0.18 in the lower/upper FCE and 0.35/0.26 in the lower/upper PILE. The model r (2) increased after inclusion of these individual factors to between 0.3 and 0.4. The fact that only a limited part of the variance in the lifting capacities can be explained by the basic functions analyzed in this study confirms the assumption that factors not related to the basic functions studied, such as lifting technique and motor control, may have a strong influence on lifting capacity. These results give evidence to suggest the inclusion of an evaluation of lifting capacity in clinical practice. Furthermore, they raise questions about the predictive value of strength and endurance tests in regard to lifting capacity and work ability.

Indexed as

Biomechanical PhenomenaLiftingPhysical EnduranceBackFemaleHumansMiddle AgedMovementMuscle, SkeletalPhysical FitnessPredictive Value of TestsRotation

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.