ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2026
Functional lifting assessment for determining impairment in low back pain patients compared with asymptomatic controls.
Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: People with low back pain (LBP) commonly report functional impairment in activities of daily living, such as bending and lifting. A standardized, performance-based lifting assessment that can be applied in a clinical setting may provide a quantifiable measure for this impairment. Objective: This study investigates the usability and reliability of a lifting assessment for detecting functional impairment in individuals with LBP compared with asymptomatic controls (CTRLs). Methods: Forty-eight LBP patients [29 women/19 men, age 39 ± 11 years, height 175 ± 9 cm, weight 77 ± 16 kg, pain intensity ≥3 on the numerical rating scale (NRS; 0-10)] and 37 age- and sex-matched controls (27 women/10 men, age 39 ± 12 years, height 172 ± 10 cm, weight 73 ± 15 kg) performed four box-lifting tasks: squat and stoop lifting, each without (0%) and with additional weight (20% body weight) in a standardized sequence (squat 0%, stoop 0%, squat 20%, stoop 20%). Each lifting task was performed twice consecutively (T1 and T2). Time to task completion (TTC, s) was defined as the main outcome measure. Descriptive statistics are presented as mean ± SD. Group comparisons were analyzed pairwise and using two-way repeated-measures ANOVA with Bonferroni correction (mean of T1 and T2; Results: LBP patients revealed higher TTC values across all lifting conditions (4.0 ± 0.9 to 5.0 ± 1.8 s) compared with asymptomatic controls (difference of 2.8 ± 0.4 to 3.2 ± 0.4s; Discussion: TTC of a simple lifting task is a reliable measure that effectively differentiates people with functional limitations due to LBP from their asymptomatic counterparts, who complete the tasks more quickly and with less variability in completion time. Nevertheless, the responsiveness of this assessment remains to be clarified before its applicability in a clinical setting can be fully determined.
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.