ArticleMusculoskeletal science & practice2021
Consistent differences in lumbar spine alignment between low back pain subgroups and genders during clinical and functional activity sitting tests.
Article in Musculoskeletal science & practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Stereophotogrammetric approaches to multi-segmental kinematics of the thoracolumbar spine: a systematic review.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2022Pooled it
- Adequate Segmentation in Marker-Based Motion Capture Studies for Hyperflexion and Hyperextension Lumbar Exercises.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Effects of the lumbar support function of wearable robot (Bot Fit) on sitting position.Biomedical engineering online · 2025Article
- Evaluating Variations in Spinopelvic Parameters from Sitting to Standing: A Comparative Analysis of 1447 Older Adults Across Age, BMI, and Gender Subgroups.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSubgroups of people with low back pain display differences in their lumbar alignment during tests from a clinical examination. However, it is unknown if subgroups display the same patterns during a functional activity test and if gender influences subgroup-related differences.
objectivesTest if differences in lumbar alignment between two LBP subgroups are 1) present during a functional activity test of preferred sitting and 2) independent of gender.
designCross-sectional.
method154 participants with chronic low back pain were classified based on the Movement System Impairment Classification System by a physical therapist. Participants performed a functional activity test of preferred sitting and clinical tests of maximum flexed and extended sitting. 3D marker co-ordinate data were collected. Sagittal plane lumbar alignment, indexed by lumbar curvature angle, was calculated. A three-way mixed effect analysis of variance was used to examine effects of test, subgroup, gender, subgroup × test, gender × test and subgroup × gender. RESULTS/
findingsThe lumbar rotation with extension subgroup [LCA = -8.0° (-9.5,-6.5)] displayed a more extended lumbar alignment than lumbar rotation [LCA = -5.9° (-7.4,-4.4)]. Women [LCA = -10.7° (-12.3,-9.2)] displayed a more extended lumbar alignment than men [LCA = -3.2° (-4.7,-1.7)]. There was a significant gender × test interaction (p = 0.01). The subgroup × test (p = 0.99) and subgroup × gender (p = 0.76) interactions were not significant.
conclusionsLBP subgroup differences in lumbar alignment are present during preferred sitting. Gender-related differences in lumbar alignment are not driving subgroup differences. These findings highlight the need to use patient-specific clinical characteristics to guide treatment of a functional activity of preferred sitting limited due to low back pain.
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.