ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2021
From Stoop to Squat: A Comprehensive Analysis of Lumbar Loading Among Different Lifting Styles.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The association between trunk flexion and low back pain in blue-collar workers: A systematic review.Work (Reading, Mass.) · 2026Pooled it
- Condition-Dependent Sex Differences in Lumbar sEMG and Prefrontal Hemodynamics During Known-Weight and Weight-Misprediction Lifting: A Pilot Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Biomechanical Analysis of Two-Person Emergency Patient Lifting Techniques Using Motion Capture and Ergonomic Assessment.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Functional lifting assessment for determining impairment in low back pain patients compared with asymptomatic controls.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Article
- Task-specific pain-related fear influences lifting biomechanics differently in individuals with and without occupations involving repetitive lifting tasks.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Fatigue-induced biomechanical decoupling at L4-S1 discs: mechanism of disc degeneration in chronic low back pain.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2025Article
- Validation of Inertial Measurement Units for Measuring Lower-Extremity Kinematics During Squat-Pivot and Stoop-Twist Lifting Tasks.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Is Lifting Technique Related to Pain and Functional Limitation? A Replicated Single-Case Design Study of Five People With Lifting-Related Chronic Low Back Pain.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2025Article
- Low Back Exoskeletons in Industry 5.0: From Machines to Perceiving Co-Pilots-A State-of-the-Art Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Different Spatial Characteristic Changes in Lumbopelvic Kinematics Before and After Fatigue: Comparison Between People with and Without Low Back Pain.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The effect of a soft active back support exosuit on trunk motion and thoracolumbar spine loading during squat and stoop lifts.Ergonomics · 2025Article
- Assessing low-back loading during lifting using personalized electromyography-driven trunk models and NIOSH-based risk levels.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Article
- Load-dependent increase in lumbar kyphosis is associated with posterior pelvic tilt during deadlift.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Article
- FleXo: a flexible passive exoskeleton optimized for reducing lower back strain in manual handling tasks.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2025Article
- [Unhelpful believes about pain. Brief pain advice in primary care].Atencion primaria · 2024Article
- Associations between pain-related fear and lumbar movement variability during activities of daily living in patients with chronic low back pain and healthy controls.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Biomechanical Study of Symmetric Bending and Lifting Behavior in Weightlifter with Lumbar L4-L5 Disc Herniation and Physiological Straightening Using Finite Element Simulation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Benchmarking commercially available soft and rigid passive back exoskeletons for an industrial workplace.Wearable technologies · 2024Article
- Low back pain prevention behaviors and beliefs among the Polish population in a cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lifting up objects from the floor has been identified as a risk factor for low back pain, whereby a flexed spine during lifting is often associated with producing higher loads in the lumbar spine. Even though recent biomechanical studies challenge these assumptions, conclusive evidence is still lacking. This study therefore aimed at comparing lumbar loads among different lifting styles using a comprehensive state-of-the-art motion capture-driven musculoskeletal modeling approach. Thirty healthy pain-free individuals were enrolled in this study and asked to repetitively lift a 15 kg-box by applying 1) a freestyle, 2) a squat and 3) a stoop lifting technique. Whole-body kinematics were recorded using a 16-camera optical motion capture system and used to drive a full-body musculoskeletal model including a detailed thoracolumbar spine. Continuous as well as peak compressive, anterior-posterior shear and total loads (resultant load vector of the compressive and shear load vectors) were calculated based on a static optimization approach and expressed as factor body weight (BW). In addition, lumbar lordosis angles and total lifting time were calculated. All parameters were compared among the lifting styles using a repeated measures design. For each lifting style, loads increased towards the caudal end of the lumbar spine. For all lumbar segments, stoop lifting showed significantly lower compressive and total loads (-0.3 to -1.0BW) when compared to freestyle and squat lifting. Stoop lifting produced higher shear loads (+0.1 to +0.8BW) in the segments T12/L1 to L4/L5, but lower loads in L5/S1 (-0.2 to -0.4BW). Peak compressive and total loads during squat lifting occurred approximately 30% earlier in the lifting cycle compared to stoop lifting. Stoop lifting showed larger lumbar lordosis range of motion (35.9 ± 10.1°) than freestyle (24.2 ± 7.3°) and squat (25.1 ± 8.2°) lifting. Lifting time differed significantly with freestyle being executed the fastest (4.6 ± 0.7 s), followed by squat (4.9 ± 0.7 s) and stoop (5.9 ± 1.1 s). Stoop lifting produced lower total and compressive lumbar loads than squat lifting. Shear loads were generally higher during stoop lifting, except for the L5/S1 segment, where anterior shear loads were higher during squat lifting. Lifting time was identified as another important factor, considering that slower speeds seem to result in lower loads.
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.