ArticleBMJ open2025
Assessing motor control and movement quality in patients with non-specific low back pain: a scoping review and development of an ICF-based conceptual framework.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Item difficulty of eight tests for the examination of lumbar movement control in flexion in chronic non-specific lumbar back pain - a cross-sectional study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Observational
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo describe frequently investigated and recommended movement tasks, the underlying motor control functions and the domains of movement quality that are assessed in patients with non-specific low back pain (LBP).
designA scoping review. Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews and JBI methodology for scoping reviews were followed. A thematic approach was used in an iterative process to identify broader themes in the data synthesis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, COSMIN database and DiTA were systematically searched as part of a three-step search strategy (last search: 22 April 2025). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Various types of evidence (qualitative and quantitative, primary and secondary) exploring and discussing movement tasks for assessing lumbopelvic motor control and movement quality in adult patients with non-specific LBP were considered. Grey literature was excluded.
resultsIn total, 354 articles from 34 countries were included. Among them, 224 were primary research studies in laboratory settings, 68 studies in clinical settings, 7 meta-analyses, 13 systematic reviews and 42 articles classified as 'other sources'. Overall, 20 movement task clusters were identified, with 'hip movements in various positions' and 'forward bending' being the two most common. A conceptual framework was constructed, consisting of five International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health-based broad motor control functions and 10 movement quality domains, namely flexibility, stability, accuracy, symmetry, speed, smoothness, adaptability, variability, efficiency and coordination.
conclusionThe provided conceptual framework for motor control functions and movement quality domains can serve as a structural foundation for future research on the content validity of assessment approaches in the context of LBP.
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.