↓ Skip to main content

How consistent are lordosis, range of movement and lumbo-pelvic rhythm in people with and without back pain?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
28 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
video
2 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
194 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
How consistent are lordosis, range of movement and lumbo-pelvic rhythm in people with and without back pain?
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12891-016-1250-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert A. Laird, Peter Kent, Jennifer L. Keating

Abstract

Comparing movements/postures in people with and without lower back pain (LBP) may assist identifying LBP-specific dysfunction and its relationship to pain or activity limitation. This study compared the consistency in lumbo-pelvic posture and movement (range and pattern) in people with and without chronic LBP (>12 week's duration). Wireless, wearable, inertial measurement units measured lumbar lordosis angle, range of movement (ROM) and lumbo-pelvic rhythm in adults (n = 63). Measurements were taken on three separate occasions: two tests on the same day with different raters and a third (intra-rater) test one to two weeks later. Participants performed five repetitions of tested postures or movements. Test data were captured automatically. Minimal detectable change scores (MDC90) provided estimates of between-test consistency. There was no significant difference between participants with and without LBP for lordosis angle. There were significant differences for pelvic flexion ROM (LBP 60.8°, NoLBP 54.8°, F(1,63) = 4.31, p = 0.04), lumbar right lateral flexion ROM (LBP 22.2°, NoLBP 24.6° F(1,63) = 4.48, p = .04), trunk right lateral flexion ROM (LBP 28.4°, NoLBP 31.7°, F(1,63) = 5.9, p = .02) and lumbar contribution to lumbo-pelvic rhythm in the LBP group (LBP 45.8 %, F(1,63) = 4.20, NoLBP 51.3 % p = .044). MDC90 estimates for intra and inter-rater comparisons were 10°-15° for lumbar lordosis, and 5°-15° for most ROM. For lumbo-pelvic rhythm, we found 8-15 % variation in lumbar contribution to flexion and lateral flexion and 36-56 % variation in extension. Good to excellent agreement (reliability) was seen between raters (mean r = .88, ICC (2,2)). Comparisons of ROM between people with and without LBP showed few differences between groups, with reduced relative lumbar contribution to trunk flexion. There was no difference between groups for lordosis. Wide, within-group differences were seen for both groups for ROM and lordosis. Due to variability between test occasions, changes would need to exceed 10°-15° for lumbar lordosis, 5°-15° for ROM components, and 8-15 % of lumbar contribution to lumbo-pelvic rhythm, to have 90 % confidence that movements had actually changed. Lordosis, range of movement and lumbo-pelvic rhythm typically demonstrate variability between same-day and different-day tests. This variability needs to be considered when interpreting posture and movement changes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 194 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 193 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 15%
Student > Bachelor 25 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 9%
Other 15 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 6%
Other 36 19%
Unknown 60 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 49 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 35 18%
Sports and Recreations 18 9%
Engineering 12 6%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 13 7%
Unknown 64 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 October 2023.
All research outputs
#1,998,297
of 25,809,966 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#363
of 4,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,660
of 330,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#9
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,809,966 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,459 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,930 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.