ReviewFrontiers in neurology
Current status and challenges in lumbar proprioception measurement: a narrative review.
Review in Frontiers in neurology. 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
Lumbar proprioception is the cornerstone for maintaining dynamic spinal stability, postural control, and central sensorimotor regulation. Clinically, proprioceptive deficits are closely tied to the occurrence and recurrence of degenerative lumbar diseases and chronic non-specific low back pain (CLBP). Despite its clinical relevance, objectively and accurately quantifying this metric remains highly controversial methodologically. This review provides a structured overview comparing existing evaluation tools, mapping their technical characteristics and clinical feasibility. To ensure a comprehensive evaluation, a literature search was conducted via PubMed and Web of Science databases utilizing Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms related to "lumbar spine" and "proprioception," supplemented by keywords including "motion sense," "vibration sense," and "force sense." Among direct metrics, position sense via inclinometer-based active joint repositioning is most widely applied, whereas motion, force, and vibration senses are less utilized. Within position sense tracking, common clinical tools like dual inclinometry and tape measurement demonstrate weak concurrent validity, large errors, and low test-retest reliability, with absolute reliability further obscured by the lack of a "gold standard." Furthermore, distinct direct metrics (motion threshold, active repositioning, and passive repositioning) lack significant inter-modal correlation. While postural balance offers a more holistic analysis of lumbar function than isolated components, its application remains limited as it is highly susceptible to confounding factors and fails to isolate or directly represent localized peripheral mechanoreceptor proprioception. In conclusion, although a multitude of methodologies have emerged, the inclinometer-based active joint repositioning paradigm demonstrates the highest feasibility in routine clinical practice. However, a universally accepted gold standard remains persistently absent, and objective quantification requires further comprehensive exploration.
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.