SynthesisScientific reports2023
Distinctive characteristics of prolonged standing low back pain developers' and the associated risk factors: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Distinctive characteristics of prolonged standing low back pain developers' and the associated risk factors: systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2023Pooled it
- Standing work and low back pain: An experimental analysis of risk factors.Work (Reading, Mass.) · 2026Article
- Observational
- Body Posture and Low Back Pain in Amateur Tennis Players: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Joint Kinematics and Muscle Activity in Response to Prolonged Standing: Analysis of Standing and Subsequent Gait.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2025Article
- Towards the Real-World Analysis of Lumbar Spine Standing Posture in Individuals with Low Back Pain: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Observational
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pain developers (PDs) are considered a pre-clinical low back pain (LBP) population at risk of clinical LBP development and thus exacting great social and economic costs. Therefore, it is necessary to comprehensively investigate their distinctive characteristics and the risk factors of standing-induced LBP based on which appropriate preventive measures can be planned. Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed databases as well as Google Scholar and ProQuest were systematically searched from inception through 14 July 2022 using a combination of terms relevant to 'standing' and 'LBP'. Studies with low risk of bias in English and Persian using a methodological quality scoring system were deemed eligible for inclusion if they were laboratory studies using prolonged standing duration greater than 42 min to classify adult PDs and non-pain developers (NPDs) without a history of LBP. PDs were compared with NPDs in demographics, biomechanical, and psychological outcomes. Weighted or standardized mean differences, and Hedge's g were generated to determine the pooled effect sizes using STATA software version 17. 52 papers and theses involving 1070 participants (528 PDs and 542 NPDs) were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review 33 of which were used in meta-analyses. Significant differences between PDs and NPDs in terms of movement patterns, muscular, postural, psychological, structural, and anthropometric variables were evidenced. The following factors were found to have a statistically significant association with standing-induced LBP: lumbar fidgets (Hedge's g - 0.72, 95% CI - 1.35 to - 0.08, P = 0.03), lumbar lordosis in participants over 25 years (Hedge's g 2.75, 95% CI 1.89-3.61, P < 0.001), AHAbd test (WMD 0.7, 95% CI 0.36-1.05, P < 0.001), GMed co-activation (Hedge's g 4.24, 95% CI 3.18-5.3, P < 0.001), and Pain Catastrophizing Scale (WMD 2.85, 95% CI 0.51-5.19, P = 0.02). Altered motor control displayed in AHAbd test and higher lumbar lordosis in individuals over 25 years seem to be probable risk factors for standing-induced LBP. In order to detect standing-induced LBP risk factors, future researchers should investigate the association of the reported distinctive characteristics to the standing-induced LBP and that whether they are manipulable through various interventions.
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.