ArticleMusculoskeletal science & practice2025
Spinal movement impairments in people with acute low back pain.
Article in Musculoskeletal science & practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSpinal movement impairments have been found to be important in people with chronic low back pain (LBP).
objectivesIdentify whether people with acute LBP display the impairments. Compare the prevalence of impairments in people with acute LBP to that of people with chronic LBP. Examine the effect on symptoms of systematically modifying the impairments.
designSecondary analysis
method183 people with LBP were examined by trained physical therapists using a standardized examination. Participants performed 9 primary tests using their preferred strategy. The clinician determined whether an impairment was present or absent. Participants reported the effect of the primary test on symptoms. If an impairment was present, it was modified to improve the impairment during a secondary test. Participants reported the effect of the secondary test on symptoms relative to symptoms with the primary test. Chi-square tests of independence were used to test for differences in the proportion of impairments between people with acute LBP and people with chronic LBP. A McNemar-Bowker test was used to test whether there was a change in symptoms from the primary test to the secondary test.
resultsPeople with acute LBP displayed the spinal movement impairments and the prevalence was similar to that of people with chronic LBP for 7 of the 9 primary tests. Most participants with symptomatic impairments reported their symptoms improved when the impairment was modified.
conclusionsSpinal movement impairments are prevalent in people with acute LBP and may be modified during clinical tests to improve LBP symptoms.
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.