ArticleBMJ open2019
Validity of increasing the number of motor control tests within a test battery for discrimination of low back pain conditions in people attending a physiotherapy clinic: a case-control study.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline 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
- 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
- Predicting pregnancy-related low back pain: a prospective cohort protocol integrating motor control and functional movement tests with pressure pain thresholds.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- The impact of chronic low back pain and motor control impairment on athletic performance in elite soccer players: a cross-sectional study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Observational
- Article
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
objectivesTo develop a time-efficient motor control (MC) test battery while maximising diagnostic accuracy of both a two-level and three-level classification system for patients with non-specific low back pain (LBP).
designCase-control study.
settingFour private physiotherapy practices in northern Germany.
participantsConsecutive males and females presenting to a physiotherapy clinic with non-specific LBP (n=65) were compared with 66 healthy-matched controls. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, Youden index, positive/negative likelihood ratio, area under the curve (AUC)) of a clinically driven consensus-based test battery including the ideal number of test items as well as threshold values and most accurate items.
resultsFor both the two and three-level categorisation system, the ideal number of test items was 10. With increasing number of failed tests, the probability of having LBP increases. The overall discrimination potential for the two-level categorisation system of the test is good (AUC=0.85) with an optimal cut-off of three failed tests. The overall discrimination potential of the three-level categorisation system is fair (volume under the surface=0.52). The optimal cut-off for the 10-item test battery for categorisation into none, mild/moderate and severe MC impairment is three and six failed tests, respectively.
conclusionA 10-item test battery is recommended for both the two-level (impairment or not) and three-level (none, mild, moderate/severe) categorisation of patients with non-specific LBP.
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.