Dataset Information

Comparing lumbo-pelvic kinematics in people with and without back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Clinicians commonly examine posture and movement in people with the belief that correcting dysfunctional movement may reduce pain. If dysfunctional movement is to be accurately identified, clinicians should know what constitutes normal movement and how this differs in people with low back pain (LBP). This systematic review examined studies that compared biomechanical aspects of lumbo-pelvic movement in people with and without LBP. METHODS: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, AMI, CINAHL, Scopus, AMED, ISI Web of Science were searched from inception until January 2014 for relevant studies. Studies had to compare adults with and without LBP using skin surface measurement techniques to measure lumbo-pelvic posture or movement. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria, and identified and extracted data. Standardised mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for group differences between people with and without LBP, and where possible, meta-analyses were performed. Within-group variability in all measurements was also compared. RESULTS: The search identified 43 eligible studies. Compared to people without LBP, on average, people with LBP display: (i) no difference in lordosis angle (8 studies), (ii) reduced lumbar ROM (19 studies), (iii) no difference in lumbar relative to hip contribution to end-range flexion (4 studies), (iv) no difference in standing pelvic tilt angle (3 studies), (v) slower movement (8 studies), and (vi) reduced proprioception (17 studies). Movement variability appeared greater for people with LBP for flexion, lateral flexion and rotation ROM, and movement speed, but not for other movement characteristics. Considerable heterogeneity exists between studies, including a lack of detail or standardization between studies on the criteria used to define participants as people with LBP (cases) or without LBP (controls). CONCLUSIONS: On average, people with LBP have reduced lumbar ROM and proprioception, and move more slowly compared to people without LBP. Whether these deficits exist prior to LBP onset is unknown.

SUBMITTER: Laird RA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4096432 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparing lumbo-pelvic kinematics in people with and without back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Laird Robert A RA Gilbert Jayce J Kent Peter P Keating Jennifer L JL

BMC musculoskeletal disorders 20140710

<h4>Background</h4>Clinicians commonly examine posture and movement in people with the belief that correcting dysfunctional movement may reduce pain. If dysfunctional movement is to be accurately identified, clinicians should know what constitutes normal movement and how this differs in people with low back pain (LBP). This systematic review examined studies that compared biomechanical aspects of lumbo-pelvic movement in people with and without LBP.<h4>Methods</h4>MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, EMBA ...[more]

PMID: 25012528

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMovement dysfunctions have been associated with persistent low back pain (LBP) but optimal treatment remains unclear. One possibility is that subgroups of persistent LBP patients have differing movement characteristics and therefore different responses to interventions. This study examined if there were patterns of flexion-related lumbo-pelvic kinematic and EMG parameters that might define subgroups of movement.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional, observational study of 126 people without any history of significant LBP and 140 people with persistent LBP (n = 266). Wireless motion and surface EMG sensors collected lumbo-pelvic data on flexion parameters (range of motion (ROM) of trunk, lumbar, and pelvis), speed, sequence coordination and timing, and EMG extensor muscle activity in forward bending (flexion relaxation)), and sitting parameters (relative position, pelvic tilt range and tilt ratio). Latent class analysis was used to identify patterns in these parameters.ResultsFour subgroups with high probabilities of membership were found (mean 94.9%, SD10.1%). Subgroup 1 (n = 133 people, 26% LBP) had the greatest range of trunk flexion, fastest movement, full flexion relaxation, and synchronous lumbar versus pelvic movement. Subgroup 2 (n = 73, 71% LBP) had the greatest lumbar ROM, less flexion relaxation, and a 0.9 s lag of pelvic movement. Subgroup 3 (n = 41, 83% LBP) had the smallest lumbar ROM, a 0.6 s delay of lumbar movement (compared to pelvic movement), and less flexion relaxation than subgroup 2. Subgroup 4 (n = 19 people, 100% LBP) had the least flexion relaxation, slowest movement, greatest delay of pelvic movement and the smallest pelvic ROM. These patterns could be described as standard (subgroup 1), lumbar dominant (subgroup 2), pelvic dominant (subgroup 3) and guarded (subgroup 4). Significant post-hoc differences were seen between subgroups for most lumbo-pelvic kinematic and EMG parameters. There was greater direction-specific pain and activity limitation scores for subgroup 4 compared to other groups, and a greater percentage of people with leg pain in subgroups 2 and 4.ConclusionFour subgroups of lumbo-pelvic flexion kinematics were revealed with an unequal distribution among people with and without a history of persistent LBP. Such subgroups may have implications for which patients are likely to respond to movement-based interventions.

Project description:BackgroundInterventions for low back pain (LBP) commonly target 'dysfunctional' or atypical lumbo-pelvic kinematics in the belief that correcting aberrant movement improves patients' pain and activity outcomes. If atypical kinematic parameters and postures have a relationship to LBP, they could be expected to more prevalent in people with LBP compared to people without LBP (NoLBP). This exploratory study measured, defined and compared atypical kinematic parameters in people with and without LBP.MethodsWireless inertial motion and EMG sensors were used to measure lumbo-pelvic kinematics during standing trunk flexion (range of motion (ROM), timing, sequence coordination, and extensor muscle activation) and in sitting (relative sitting position, pelvic tilt range) in a sample of 126 of adults without LBP and 140 chronic LBP subjects. Atypical movement was defined using the 10th/90th centiles of the NoLBP group. Mean differences and prevalence rates for atypical movement were calculated. Dichotomised pain scores for 'high-pain-on-bending' and 'high-pain-on-sitting' were tested for their association with atypical kinematic variables.ResultsFor standing flexion, significant mean differences, after adjusting for age and gender factors, were seen for the LBP group with (i) reduced ROM (trunk flexion (NoLBP 111o, LBP 93o, p < .0001), lumbar flexion (NoLBP 52o, LBP 46o, p < .0001), pelvic flexion (NoLBP 59o, LBP 48o, p < .0001), (ii) greater extensor muscle activation for the LBP group (NoLBP 0.012, LBP 0.25 p < .0001), (iii) a greater delay in pelvic motion at the onset of flexion (NoLBP - 0.21 s; LBP - 0.36 s, p = 0.023), (iv) and longer movement duration for the LBP group (NoLBP 2.28 s; LBP 3.18 s, p < .0001). Atypical movement was significantly more prevalent in the LBP group for small trunk (× 5.4), lumbar (× 3.0) and pelvic ROM (× 3.9), low FRR (× 4.9), delayed pelvic motion at 20o flexion (× 2.9), and longer movement duration (× 4.7). No differences between groups were seen for any sitting parameters. High pain intensity was significantly associated with small lumbar ROM and pelvic ROM.ConclusionSignificant movement differences during flexion were seen in people with LBP, with a higher prevalence of small ROM, slower movement, delayed pelvic movement and greater lumbar extensor muscle activation but without differences for any sitting parameter.

Project description:BackgroundAltered spinal postures and altered motor control observed among people with non-specific low back pain have been associated with abnormal processing of sensory inputs. Evidence indicates that patients with non-specific low back pain have impaired lumbo-pelvic proprioceptive acuity compared to asymptomatic individuals.ObjectiveTo systematically review seated lumbo-pelvic proprioception among people with non-specific low back pain.MethodsFive electronic databases were searched to identify studies comparing lumbo-pelvic proprioception using active repositioning accuracy in sitting posture in individuals with and without non-specific low back pain. Study quality was assessed by using a modified Downs and Black's checklist. Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted tool for cross-sectional design and case-control studies. We performed meta-analysis using a random effects model. Meta-analyses included subgroup analyses according to disability level, directional subgrouping pattern, and availability of vision during testing. We rated the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.Results16 studies met the eligibility criteria. Pooled meta-analyses were possible for absolute error, variable error, and constant error, measured in sagittal and transverse planes. There is very low and low certainty evidence of greater absolute and variable repositioning error in seated tasks among non-specific low back pain patients overall compared to asymptomatic individuals (sagittal plane). Subgroup analyses indicate moderate certainty evidence of greater absolute and variable error in seated tasks among directional subgroups of adults with non-specific low back pain, along with weaker evidence (low-very low certainty) of greater constant error.DiscussionLumbo-pelvic proprioception is impaired among people with non-specific low back pain. However, the low certainty of evidence, the small magnitude of error observed and the calculated "noise" of proprioception measures, suggest that any observed differences in lumbo-pelvic proprioception may be of limited clinical utility.Prospero-idCRD42018107671.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Globally, low back pain (LBP) is one of the greatest causes of disability. In people with LBP, dysfunction of muscles such as the gluteus medius have been demonstrated to increase spinal loading and reduce spinal stability. Differences in gluteus medius function have been reported in those with LBP compared to those without, although this has only been reported in individual studies. The aim of this systematic review was to determine if adults with a history, or current LBP, demonstrate differences in measures of gluteus medius function when compared to adults without LBP. METHODS:MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO, PubMED, Pro Quest Database, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus were searched from inception until December 2018 for published journal articles and conference abstracts. No language restrictions were applied. Only case-control studies with participants 18?years and over were included. Participants could have had any type and duration of LBP. Studies could have assessed gluteus medius function with any quantifiable clinical assessment or measurement tool, with the participant non-weight bearing or weight bearing, and during static or dynamic activity. Quality appraisal and data extraction were independently performed by two authors. RESULTS:The 24 included articles involved 1088 participants with LBP and 998 without LBP. The gluteus medius muscle in participants with LBP tended to demonstrate reduced strength and more trigger points compared to the gluteus medius muscle of those without LBP. The level of activity, fatigability, time to activate, time to peak activation, cross sectional area, and muscle thickness showed unclear results. Meta-analysis was not performed due to the heterogeneity of included studies. CONCLUSION:Clinically, the findings from this systematic review should be considered when assessing and managing patients with LBP. Future studies that clearly define the type and duration of LBP, and prospectively assess gluteus medius muscle function in those with and without LBP are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO ( CRD42017076773 ).

Project description:ObjectiveAcupuncture is emerging as a potential therapy for relieving pain, but the effectiveness of acupuncture for relieving low back and/or pelvic pain (LBPP) during the pregnancy remains controversial. This meta-analysis aims to investigate the effects of acupuncture on pain, functional status and quality of life for women with LBPP pain during the pregnancy.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesThe PubMed, EMBASE databases, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched for relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to 15 January 2022.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRCTs evaluating the effects of acupuncture on LBPP during the pregnancy were included.Data extraction and synthesisThe data extraction and study quality assessment were independently performed by three reviewers. The mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for pooled data were calculated. We assessed the confidence in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were pain, functional status and quality of life. The secondary outcomes were overall effects (a questionnaire at a post-treatment visit within a week after the last treatment to determine the number of people who received good or excellent help), analgesic consumption, Apgar scores >7 at 5 min, adverse events, gestational age at birth, induction of labour and mode of birth.ResultsThis meta-analysis included 10 studies, reporting on a total of 1040 women. Overall, acupuncture significantly relieved pain during pregnancy (MD=1.70, 95% CI: (0.95 to 2.45), p<0.00001, I2=90%) and improved functional status (MD=12.44, 95% CI: (3.32 to 21.55), p=0.007, I2=94%) and quality of life (MD=-8.89, 95% CI: (-11.90 to -5.88), p<0.00001, I2 = 57%). There was a significant difference for overall effects (OR=0.13, 95% CI: (0.07 to 0.23), p<0.00001, I2 = 7%). However, there was no significant difference for analgesic consumption during the study period (OR=2.49, 95% CI: (0.08 to 80.25), p=0.61, I2=61%) and Apgar scores of newborns (OR=1.02, 95% CI: (0.37 to 2.83), p=0.97, I2 = 0%). Preterm birth from acupuncture during he study period was reported in two studies. Although preterm contractions were reported in two studies, all infants were in good health at birth. In terms of gestational age at birth, induction of labour and mode of birth, only one study reported the gestational age at birth (mean gestation 40 weeks). Thus, prospective randomised clinical studies or clinical follow-up studies were hence desirable to further evaluate these outcomes.ConclusionsAcupuncture significantly improved pain, functional status and quality of life in women with LBPP during the pregnancy. Additionally, acupuncture had no observable severe adverse influences on the newborns. More large-scale and well-designed RCTs are still needed to further confirm these results.Prospero registration numberCRD42021241771.

Project description:BackgroundIndividuals with persistent low back pain commonly have a broad range of other health concerns including co-occurring musculoskeletal pain, which significantly affect their quality of life, symptom severity, and treatment outcomes. The purpose of this review is to get a better understanding of prevalence and patterns of co-occurring musculoskeletal pain complaints in those with persistent low back pain and its potential association with age, sex, and back-related disability as it might affect prognosis and management.MethodsThis systematic review protocol has been designed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols. We will perform a comprehensive search, with no date limit, in the following bibliographic databases: MEDLINE and Embase (via Ovid), CINAHL, and Scopus for citation tracking, based on the following domains: back pain, co-occurring musculoskeletal pain, combined with a focus group that emphasizes study design. Appropriate papers will be screened against the eligibility criteria by three reviewers independently, data extracted by two independent author pairs and disagreement resolved by consensus meetings or other reviewers if required. Assessment of methodological quality and risk of bias will be conducted using a modified version of the Risk of Bias Tool for Prevalence Studies developed by Hoy and colleagues. The overall risk of bias will be determined for each included study based on the raters' consensus of the responses to the items in this tool. In case of sufficiently homogenous studies, meta-analysis will be performed.DiscussionGiven the lack of standard terms used to define co-occurring musculoskeletal pain, the search strategy will include the broader term "back pain," different terms for the "other co-occurring pain," and specific study designs combined with several exclusion terms. The results of this proposed review will identify the prevalence and patterns of co-occurring musculoskeletal pain among those with persistent low back pain, which is likely to inform clinical management, research, and policy in management of musculoskeletal disorders.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017068807.

Dataset Information

Comparing lumbo-pelvic kinematics in people with and without back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Comparing lumbo-pelvic kinematics in people with and without back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets