ReviewEuropean spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society2026
Methods for assessing core muscle co-activation in the lumbar region: a narrative review.
Review in European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comment on "CALLY index and bone mineral density as risk factors for adjacent vertebral fracture after balloon kyphoplasty for treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture: a retrospective analysis".European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
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
Abstract
purposeCore muscle co-activation is a key neuromuscular mechanism for lumbar spine stability, and its quantitative assessment is important for understanding spinal control, identifying dysfunction, guiding rehabilitation, and informing injury prevention. This narrative review critically appraises current methods for assessing lumbar core muscle co-activation, focusing on their theoretical basis, technical characteristics, interpretive value, limitations, and practical applicability.
methodsCurrent assessment approaches were narratively synthesized and categorized into surface electromyography, co-contraction index calculations, musculoskeletal modeling, and multimodal approaches integrating electromyographic data with biomechanical simulations. The review examined how these methods capture, quantify, and interpret lumbar core muscle co-activation, and how methodological variability affects validity, reproducibility, comparability, and translation.
resultsSurface electromyography is widely used to assess muscle activation but is affected by signal variability, electrode placement, normalization, crosstalk, and task dependency. Co-contraction index calculations quantify simultaneous muscle activation, yet their validity depends on muscle-pair selection, signal processing, time-window definition, and assumptions regarding agonist and antagonist roles. Musculoskeletal modeling estimates muscle force, spinal loading, and biomechanical consequences of co-activation, but outputs depend on anatomical assumptions, optimization criteria, and validation quality. Multimodal approaches may improve biomechanical interpretation but require technical expertise and standardized integration procedures.
conclusionExisting methods provide valuable but heterogeneous insights into lumbar neuromuscular control and spinal stability. Future research should prioritize standardized protocols for electromyography processing, muscle selection, task design, co-contraction index computation, and multimodal model validation to enhance reproducibility, comparability, and clinical translation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42663635What 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.