Trial reportJournal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation2018
Sensor-based postural feedback is more effective than conventional feedback to improve lumbopelvic movement control in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02773160 (Motor Learning for the Lumbar Spine Using Sensor-based Postural Feedback), which is not on this map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Motor Learning for the Lumbar Spine Using Sensor-based Postural Feedback: a Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Use of Sensors to Prevent, Predict Transition to Chronic and Personalize Treatment of Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Pooled it
- Biofeedback Sensor vs. Physiotherapist Feedback During Core Stabilization Training in Patients with Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain.Applied psychophysiology and biofeedback · 2024Trial
- Supervised exercise therapy versus laser-guided exercise therapy on postural control in subjects with non-specific chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled clinical trial.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2023Trial
- The Effectiveness and Safety of Utilizing Mobile Phone-Based Programs for Rehabilitation After Lumbar Spinal Surgery: Multicenter, Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2019Trial
- Varying effectiveness of real-time biofeedback across various activities in preserving lumbar Lordotic curvature using an inertial measurement system.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Wearable technology mediated biofeedback to modulate spine motor control: a scoping review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Task-Specific Perceived Harmfulness Predicts Protective Movement Behaviour in Chronic Low Back Pain.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Lumbo-Pelvic Rhythm Monitoring Using Wearable Technology with Sensory Biofeedback: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Effects of the Three-Direction Movement Control Focus Complex Pain Program and Neurodynamic Focus Complex Pain Program on Pain, Mechanosensitivity, and Body Function in Taekwondo Athletes with Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Preliminary Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Effects of Complex Pain Control Programs on Taekwondo Athletes with Recurrent Low Back Pain: A Case Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Wearable and Stretchable SEBS/CB Polymer Conductive Strand as a Piezoresistive Strain Sensor.Polymers · 2023Article
- Acute effects of game-based biofeedback training on trunk motion in chronic low back pain: a randomized cross-over pilot trial.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2022Article
- Feedback on Trunk Movements From an Electronic Game to Improve Postural Balance in People With Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR serious games · 2022Article
- A vision for the future of wearable sensors in spine care and its challenges: narrative review.Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2022Review
- Sensor-based intervention to enhance movement control of the spine in low back pain: Protocol for a quasi-randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2022Article
- Monitoring Lower Back Activity in Daily Life Using Small Unintrusive Sensors and Wearable Electronics in the Context of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Exergaming Using Postural Feedback From Wearable Sensors and Exercise Therapy to Improve Postural Balance in People With Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Protocol for a Factorial Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2021Article
- Deliberate Practice and Motor Learning Principles to Underpin the Design of Training Interventions for Improving Lifting Movement in the Occupational Sector: A Perspective and a Pilot Study on the Role of Augmented Feedback.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2021Article
- Sensor Technologies to Manage the Physiological Traits of Chronic Pain: A Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- The Back Pain and Movement (B-PAM) registry; a study protocol.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImproving movement control can be an important treatment goal for patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Although external feedback is essential when learning new movement skills, many aspects of feedback provision in patients with CLBP remain currently unexplored. New rehabilitation technologies, such as movement sensors, are able to provide reliable and accurate feedback. As such, they might be more effective than conventional feedback for improving movement control. The aims of this study were (1) to assess whether sensor-based feedback is more effective to improve lumbopelvic movement control compared to feedback from a mirror or no feedback in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP), and (2) to evaluate whether patients with CLBP are equally capable of improving lumbopelvic movement control compared to healthy persons.
methodsFifty-four healthy participants and 54 patients with chronic non-specific LBP were recruited. Both participant groups were randomised into three subgroups. During a single exercise session, subgroups practised a lumbopelvic movement control task while receiving a different type of feedback, i.e. feedback from movement sensors, from a mirror or no feedback (=control group). Kinematic measurements of the lumbar spine and hip were obtained at baseline, during and immediately after the intervention to evaluate the improvements in movement control on the practised task (assessment of performance) and on a transfer task (assessment of motor learning).
resultsSensor-based feedback was more effective than feedback from a mirror (p < 0.0001) and no feedback (p < 0.0001) to improve lumbopelvic movement control performance (Sensor vs. Mirror estimated difference 9.9° (95% CI 6.1°-13.7°), Sensor vs. Control estimated difference 10.6° (95% CI 6.8°-14.3°)) and motor learning (Sensor vs. Mirror estimated difference 7.2° (95% CI 3.8°-10.6°), Sensor vs. Control estimated difference 6.9° (95% CI 3.5°-10.2°)). Patients with CLBP were equally capable of improving lumbopelvic movement control compared to healthy persons.
conclusionsSensor-based feedback is an effective means to improve lumbopelvic movement control in patients with CLBP. Future research should focus on the long-term retention effects of sensor-based feedback.
trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov NCT02773160 , (retrospectively registered on May 16th, 2016).
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.