ArticlePloS one2025
Comparative study of thoracolumbar fascia changes in weightlifters with and without low back pain.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThoracolumbar fascia (TLF) is thought to be linked to low back pain (LBP). This cross-sectional study aimed to investigate the difference in TLF thickness and stiffness between elite weightlifters with and without chronic LBP.
methodsForty-six elite weightlifters (aged 16-26 years; 23 with chronic bilateral LBP) were recruited. TLF thickness was measured in all participants, while stiffness was assessed in 17 of them (aged 19-25 years; 9 with chronic bilateral LBP). Investigations were conducted at the L3 level, about 2 cm lateral to midline, using ultrasound. Bright mode and shear wave elastography (SWE) mode were employed to measure the thickness and Young's modulus (as an indicator of stiffness) of TLF, respectively. Analyses of covariates (ANCOVAs) were employed to compare the differences in TLF thickness and stiffness between LBP and non-LBP groups, controlling for pre-determined confounding factors. Repeated ANCOVAs were performed to investigate the side-to-side differences in TLF thickness and stiffness in weightlifters with and without LBP. The significance level was set as p ≤ 0.05.
resultsThe mean thickness and stiffness of TLF were 1.63 ± 0.38 mm and 47.77 ± 13.26 kPa on the dominant, and 1.88 ± 0.60 mm and 48.09 ± 12.62 kPa on the non-dominant sides respectively. The stiffness of the TLF on the dominant side was 42.4% higher in the LBP group compared to the non-LBP control (mean difference (MD) =16.55 kPa > MDC95, p = 0.005, Cohen's d = 1.58). No significant differences were detected in TLF thickness (p > 0.05). Additionally, LBP was found to be a factor influencing the side-to-side differences in stiffness but not in thickness. Specifically, the thickness of the non-dominant side was 15.3% higher than the dominant side (MD = 0.25 mm > MDC95, p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.63), which was not detected in stiffness.
conclusionChronic LBP in elite weightlifters was associated with significantly higher TLF stiffness but unchanged thickness, suggesting stiffness is a more informative indicator of TLF health than thickness. Addressing stiffness in prevention and rehabilitation programs may improve weightlifters' performance and career longevity.
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.