ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Assessment of Task-Specific Gait and Balance Deficits in Chronic Low Back Pain Using Multi-Sensor Inertial Measurement Units.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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
Abstract
Chronic low back pain (cLBP) compromises daily function, but associated balance deficits remain difficult to quantify using traditional scales. We recruited 50 participants with CLBP (age: 65.68 ± 11.84) and 50 age-matched controls (age: 65.26 ± 10.73) wearing multiple inertial measurement units (IMUs) to evaluate kinematics: average absolute angular velocity (Jω) and linear acceleration (Jα) across static (single-leg stance), perturbed (balance board), locomotor (walking, tandem gait), and transitional (five times sit-to-stand) tasks. Group differences were assessed using multivariate analysis of variance and Bonferroni-adjusted univariate tests. During the balance board test, Jω was significantly higher at the chest (p = 0.027) and hip (p = 0.003) in the CLBP group. Conversely, during the sit-to-stand tests, the CLBP group showed significantly lower Jα and Jω (
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.