ReviewPeerJ2023
Differences in lumbar spine intradiscal pressure between standing and sitting postures: a comprehensive literature review.
Review in PeerJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pelvic morphology decoupling from lumbar lordosis in chronic low back pain.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 · 2026Article
- A Smart System for Continuous Sitting Posture Monitoring, Assessment, and Personalized Feedback.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- The influence of workload on muscle fatigue, tissue properties, and postural stability in older and younger workers.PloS one · 2025Article
- Biomechanical design of titanium-PEEK combined fusion cage based on PLIF surgical model.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs), especially in the lumbar spine, are a leading concern in occupational health. Work activities associated with excessive exposure are a source of risk for MSDs. The optimal design of workplaces requires changes in both sitting and standing postures. In order to secure such a design scientifically proved quantitative data are needed that would allow for the assessment of differences in spine load due to body posture and/or exerted force. Intradiscal pressure (IP) measurement in the lumbar spine is the most direct method of estimating spinal loads. Hence, this study aims at the quantitative evaluation of differences in lumbar spine load due to body posture and exerted forces, based on IP reported in publications obtained from a comprehensive review of the available literature. Methodology: In order to collect data from studies measuring IP in the lumbar spine, three databases were searched. Studies with IP for living adults, measured in various sitting and standing postures, where one of these was standing upright, were included in the analysis. For data to be comparable between studies, the IP for each position was referenced to upright standing. Where different studies presented IP for the same postures, those relative IPs (rIP) were merged. Then, an analysis of the respective outcomes was conducted to find the possible relationship of IPs dependent on a specific posture. Results: A preliminary analysis of the reviewed papers returned nine items fulfilling the inclusion and exclusion criteria. After merging relative IPs from different studies, rIP for 27 sitting and 26 standing postures was yielded. Some of the data were useful for deriving mathematical equations expressing rIP as a function of back flexion angle and exerted force in the form of a second degree polynomial equation for the standing and sitting positions. The equations showed that for the standing posture, the increase in IP with increasing back flexion angle is steeper when applying an external force than when maintaining body position only. In a sitting position with the back flexed at 20°, adding 10 kg to each hand increases the IP by about 50%. According to the equations developed, for back flexion angles less than 20°, the IP is greater in sitting than in standing. When the angle is greater than 20°, the IP in the sitting position is less than in the standing position at the same angle of back flexion. Conclusions: Analysis of the data from the reviewed papers showed that: sitting without support increases IP by about 30% in relation to upright standing; a polynomial of the second degree defines changes in IP as a function of back flexion for for both postures. There are differences in the pattern of changes in IP with a back flexion angle between sitting and standing postures, as back flexion in standing increases IP more than in sitting.
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.