ArticlePloS one2025
Validity of a 6-item movement control test battery for evaluation of movement control impairment in the lumbar spine.
Article in PloS one, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with chronic non-specific low back pain (CNLBP) demonstrate movement control impairment (MCI) based on a 6-item motor control test (MCT) battery, suggesting its potential clinical utility.
objectivesThis study aimed to determine the criterion-related validity of the 6-item MCT battery in discriminating MCI among individuals with CNLBP, a history of low back pain (HxLBP), and no low back pain (NoLBP).
methodsOne hundred forty-one participants aged 20-40 years (47 participants per group) were recruited. The MCT battery (the waiter's bow, pelvic tilt, sitting knee extension, quadruped rocking forward, quadruped rocking backward, prone knee flexion) was rated using different rating methods, including individual tests, summation, and direction-specific tests. A 2x2 contingency table using a known group against the rating result was used to calculate chi-square, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios for each pair separately.
resultsChi-square tests demonstrated significant associations (P < 0.05) between MCT and CNLBP when compared against NoLBP. In addition, the waiter's bow and flexion-specific tests demonstrated high sensitivity (81% and 72%, respectively), while sitting knee extension, prone knee flexion, and summation demonstrated high specificity (70%, 70%, and 89%, respectively).
conclusionFindings suggest the acceptable validity of the MCT battery when compared between CNLBP and NoLBP. The waiter's bow and flexion-specific tests effectively ruled out individuals with NoLBP with negative results, while sitting knee extension, prone knee flexion, and summation effectively ruled in the individuals with CNLBP with positive results. These findings highlight the clinical utility of these tests in assessing MCI in the lumbar spine.
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.