ArticleScientific reports2025
Objective and subjective assessment of back shape and function in persons with and without low back pain.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative effects of exercise modalities and dose parameters on chronic low back pain in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Pooled it
- The Effects of Dynamic Stability Training with Inertial Load of Water on Dynamic Balance and Pain in Middle-Aged Women with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2025Article
- Bioengineering Support in the Assessment and Rehabilitation of Low Back Pain.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Individuals with chronic low back pain (cLBP) may self-report about impairment of their back shape and function. As classical clinical diagnostic modalities seem to provide limited information on the pathogenesis of cLBP, interest has shifted to a more comprehensive approach of diagnosing cLBP. Self-reported outcome measurements in the form of either questionnaires or as part of clinical interview have gained interest. In theory, these self-reported assessments on one's LBP provide the clinician with substantial information regarding the dominance of specific factors in a rather complex bio-psycho-social interplay of factors leading to cLBP. In order to analyze how well self-reported impairment (SRI) corresponds with objective measures, we evaluated the association between SRI and objectively measured back shape and function. In a cross-sectional study, we included 914 participants (207 asymptomatic, 480 non-chronic LBP (ncLBP), 227 cLBP). Participants were categorized into three groups: asymptomatic participants did not report back pain. Participants with back pain lasting for 12 weeks or more were categorized as cLBP patients, while participants with back pain for less than 12 weeks were classified as non-chronic LBP patients (ncLBP). Back function was quantified using finger-to-floor distance (FFD), Ott and Schober test, and 30 s sit-to-stand test (STS). Back shape and function were measured in standing position using a computer-assisted medical device. SRI was quantified during a clinical interview using a numerical 10-score-scale (1: unrestricted, 10: severely restricted). Higher SRI was associated with worse performance in every clinical test. Effect estimates ranged from small (Ott test: β = -0.05, CI -0.09-0.00, η
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.