Trial reportBMC musculoskeletal disorders2011
Inter-examiner reproducibility of tests for lumbar motor control.
Trial report in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Psychometric properties of chronic low back pain diagnostic classification systems: a systematic review.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 · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Movement Control Impairment and Low Back Pain: State of the Art of Diagnostic Framing.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2019Pooled it
- The intra- and inter-rater reliability of five clinical muscle performance tests in patients with and without neck pain.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2013Trial
- Inter- and intra-observer reliability of clinical movement-control tests for marines.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2012Trial
- Efficacy of movement control exercises versus general exercises on recurrent sub-acute nonspecific low back pain in a sub-group of patients with movement control dysfunction. Protocol of a randomized controlled trial.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2012Trial
- Item difficulty of eight tests for the examination of lumbar movement control in flexion in chronic non-specific lumbar back pain - a cross-sectional study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Observational
- Article
- Relationship Between Lumbar Motor Control Ability and Spinal Curvature in Elderly Individuals.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Balance Control in Patients with Subacute Non-Specific Low Back Pain, with and without Lumbar Instability: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of pain research · 2020Article
- Article
- The effect of core stabilization exercise on lumbar joint position sense in patients with subacute non-specific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of physical therapy science · 2018Article
- Observational
- Reliability and Validity of Standing Back Extension Test for Detecting Motor Control Impairment in Subjects with Low Back Pain.Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2016Article
- Reliability, construct and discriminative validity of clinical testing in subjects with and without chronic neck pain.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2014Article
- An exploratory examination of the association between altered lumbar motor control, joint mobility and low back pain in athletes.Asian journal of sports medicine · 2014Article
- Reliability of movement control tests on the cervical spine.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2014Article
- Single leg mini squat: an inter-tester reproducibility study of children in the age of 9-10 and 12-14 years presented by various methods of kappa calculation.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany studies show a relation between reduced lumbar motor control (LMC) and low back pain (LBP). However, test circumstances vary and during test performance, subjects may change position. In other words, the reliability--i.e. reproducibility and validity--of tests for LMC should be based on quantitative data. This has not been considered before. The aim was to analyse the reproducibility of five different quantitative tests for LMC commonly used in daily clinical practice.
methodsThe five tests for LMC were: repositioning (RPS), sitting forward lean (SFL), sitting knee extension (SKE), and bent knee fall out (BKFO), all measured in cm, and leg lowering (LL), measured in mm Hg. A total of 40 subjects (14 males, 26 females) 25 with and 15 without LBP, with a mean age of 46.5 years (SD 14.8), were examined independently and in random order by two examiners on the same day. LBP subjects were recruited from three physiotherapy clinics with a connection to the clinic's gym or back-school. Non-LBP subjects were recruited from the clinic's staff acquaintances, and from patients without LBP.
resultsThe means and standard deviations for each of the tests were 0.36 (0.27) cm for RPS, 1.01 (0.62) cm for SFL, 0.40 (0.29) cm for SKE, 1.07 (0.52) cm for BKFO, and 32.9 (7.1) mm Hg for LL. All five tests for LMC had reproducibility with the following ICCs: 0.90 for RPS, 0.96 for SFL, 0.96 for SKE, 0.94 for BKFO, and 0.98 for LL. Bland and Altman plots showed that most of the differences between examiners A and B were less than 0.20 cm.
conclusionThese five tests for LMC displayed excellent reproducibility. However, the diagnostic accuracy of these tests needs to be addressed in larger cohorts of subjects, establishing values for the normal population. Also cut-points between subjects with and without LBP must be determined, taking into account age, level of activity, degree of impairment and participation in sports. Whether reproducibility of these tests is as good in daily clinical practice when used by untrained examiners also needs to be examined.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.