SynthesisEuropean journal of pain (London, England)2026
The Effects of Lumbar Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness on Clinical, Biomechanical and Neuromuscular Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of pain (London, England), 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveLow back pain is multifactorial, making it difficult to isolate pain-related motor adaptations. Experimental pain models may help clarify these mechanisms. This systematic review evaluates lumbar delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) as a movement-evoked pain model and its effects on clinical, biomechanical and neuromuscular outcomes. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: The meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD420251051399) included studies of healthy adults with experimentally induced DOMS, with outcomes assessed within 5 days under the influence of DOMS. Databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, CINAH) were searched (9/12/2025), with manual screening. Independent study selection, data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment (NIH Quality Assessment Tool) were performed. Random-effects meta-analysis calculated standardized mean differences (SMDs). Sensitivity analyses and GRADE (Cochrane) assessed robustness and evidence certainty.
resultsEighteen studies were included (452 participants). DOMS significantly increased low back pain intensity (SMD: Day 1 with DOMS = 1.12, Day 2 = 0.94, Day 3 = 0.69, Day 4 = 0.49) and soreness (Day 1 = 1.94, Day 2 = 1.66, Day 3 = 0.88, Day 4 = 0.59). Pressure pain thresholds decreased significantly (Day 1 = -0.47, Day 2 = -0.44). Trunk extension maximal voluntary contraction decreased significantly (Day 1 = -0.67, Day 2 = -0.95, Day 3 = -0.84, Day 4 = -0.38), while trunk flexion range of motion and flexion relaxation ratios remained unchanged.
conclusionsLumbar DOMS replicates low back pain features, movement-evoked pain, increased sensitivity and reduced muscle function, providing a non-invasive model to study short-term neuromuscular adaptations in a controlled setting. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: This review highlights lumbar DOMS as a safe, non-invasive model to study short-term neuromuscular adaptations to pain to better understand pain mechanism. This synthesis provides foundational work for future studies using DOMS to explore LBP mechanisms. By clarifying its strengths (e.g., ecological validity for acute pain) and limitations (e.g., short duration, lack of pain-related psychological factors), we aimed to guide more standardized applications of this model in pain research.
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.