患有或不患有慢性下背痛的个体在向前运动过程中勃起棘肌的激活:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。

Euan W. Taylor BSc , U. Chris Ugbolue PhD , Yang Gao PhD , Yaodong Gu PhD , Julien S. Baker PhD , Frédéric Dutheil PhD
{"title":"患有或不患有慢性下背痛的个体在向前运动过程中勃起棘肌的激活:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Euan W. Taylor BSc ,&nbsp;U. Chris Ugbolue PhD ,&nbsp;Yang Gao PhD ,&nbsp;Yaodong Gu PhD ,&nbsp;Julien S. Baker PhD ,&nbsp;Frédéric Dutheil PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.arrct.2023.100280","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To investigate the differences between erector spinae muscle activation in healthy individuals and patients with Chronic Lower Back Pain (CLBP) by conducting (a) systematic review and (b) meta-analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Data Sources</h3><p>PubMed, ScienceDirect, SPORTDiscus, and Google Scholar were used to conduct the searches, which included studies up to the 31st of March 2023 with no start date specified.</p></div><div><h3>Study Selection</h3><p>Any study otherwise meeting eligibility criteria was included if it reported either (1) a standard mean difference effect size; or (2) the means, SDs, and sample sizes for both the patient group and the comparator group.</p></div><div><h3>Data Extraction</h3><p>A total of 7 case control trials were used for the systematic review and meta-analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Data Synthesis</h3><p>The systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that total standardized mean difference in erector spinae muscle activation between healthy individuals vs patients with CLBP expressed in % maximum voluntary isometric contraction was 0.48 (95% confidence interval=0.21-0.74; <em>P</em>&lt;.001) with the heterogeneity being I<sup>2</sup>=0% (<em>P</em>=.890). The electromyography (EMG) outputs showed significant differences in activation levels between the healthy and CLBP cohorts (<em>P</em>&lt;.001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>A small effect size was found in the meta-analysis. The muscle activation levels of the erector spinae during forward propulsion were higher in CLBP individuals compared with healthy cohorts. The findings provide more clarity about the muscles that were the focus of previous research, what procedures were used to evaluate muscular contributions and what speeds the participants were moving at during the test sessions. Given the limited methodological quality of the included studies, the findings should be interpreted with caution. Future research should evaluate the effect of other factors such as walking distance and any changes in walking surfaces and gradients (ie, non-flat surfaces).</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72291,"journal":{"name":"Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation","volume":"5 3","pages":"Article 100280"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10517367/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Erector Spinae Muscle Activation During Forward Movement in Individuals With or Without Chronic Lower Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Euan W. Taylor BSc ,&nbsp;U. Chris Ugbolue PhD ,&nbsp;Yang Gao PhD ,&nbsp;Yaodong Gu PhD ,&nbsp;Julien S. Baker PhD ,&nbsp;Frédéric Dutheil PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.arrct.2023.100280\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To investigate the differences between erector spinae muscle activation in healthy individuals and patients with Chronic Lower Back Pain (CLBP) by conducting (a) systematic review and (b) meta-analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Data Sources</h3><p>PubMed, ScienceDirect, SPORTDiscus, and Google Scholar were used to conduct the searches, which included studies up to the 31st of March 2023 with no start date specified.</p></div><div><h3>Study Selection</h3><p>Any study otherwise meeting eligibility criteria was included if it reported either (1) a standard mean difference effect size; or (2) the means, SDs, and sample sizes for both the patient group and the comparator group.</p></div><div><h3>Data Extraction</h3><p>A total of 7 case control trials were used for the systematic review and meta-analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Data Synthesis</h3><p>The systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that total standardized mean difference in erector spinae muscle activation between healthy individuals vs patients with CLBP expressed in % maximum voluntary isometric contraction was 0.48 (95% confidence interval=0.21-0.74; <em>P</em>&lt;.001) with the heterogeneity being I<sup>2</sup>=0% (<em>P</em>=.890). The electromyography (EMG) outputs showed significant differences in activation levels between the healthy and CLBP cohorts (<em>P</em>&lt;.001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>A small effect size was found in the meta-analysis. The muscle activation levels of the erector spinae during forward propulsion were higher in CLBP individuals compared with healthy cohorts. The findings provide more clarity about the muscles that were the focus of previous research, what procedures were used to evaluate muscular contributions and what speeds the participants were moving at during the test sessions. Given the limited methodological quality of the included studies, the findings should be interpreted with caution. Future research should evaluate the effect of other factors such as walking distance and any changes in walking surfaces and gradients (ie, non-flat surfaces).</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72291,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation\",\"volume\":\"5 3\",\"pages\":\"Article 100280\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10517367/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590109523000368\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590109523000368","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:通过(a)系统综述和(b)荟萃分析,探讨健康人和慢性下背痛(CLBP)患者竖脊肌激活之间的差异。数据来源:PubMed、ScienceDirect、SPORTDiscus和Google Scholar被用于进行搜索,其中包括截至2023年3月31日的研究,但没有指定开始日期。研究选择:如果任何符合资格标准的研究报告了(1)标准平均差效应大小,则将其包括在内;或(2)患者组和对照组的平均值、SD和样本量。数据提取:共有7项病例对照试验用于系统回顾和荟萃分析。数据综合:系统综述和荟萃分析显示,健康个体与CLBP患者之间竖脊肌激活的总标准化平均差异(以最大自主等长收缩百分比表示)为0.48(95%置信区间=0.21-0.74;P2=0%(P=.890)。肌电图(EMG)输出显示激活水平存在显著差异在健康和CLBP队列之间(结论:在荟萃分析中发现了一个小的影响范围。与健康队列相比,CLBP个体在向前推进过程中直立棘的肌肉激活水平更高。这些发现更清楚地说明了先前研究的重点肌肉、评估肌肉贡献的程序以及参与者的速度在测试期间移动。鉴于纳入研究的方法学质量有限,应谨慎解读研究结果。未来的研究应该评估其他因素的影响,如步行距离以及步行表面和坡度(即非平坦表面)的任何变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Erector Spinae Muscle Activation During Forward Movement in Individuals With or Without Chronic Lower Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Objective

To investigate the differences between erector spinae muscle activation in healthy individuals and patients with Chronic Lower Back Pain (CLBP) by conducting (a) systematic review and (b) meta-analysis.

Data Sources

PubMed, ScienceDirect, SPORTDiscus, and Google Scholar were used to conduct the searches, which included studies up to the 31st of March 2023 with no start date specified.

Study Selection

Any study otherwise meeting eligibility criteria was included if it reported either (1) a standard mean difference effect size; or (2) the means, SDs, and sample sizes for both the patient group and the comparator group.

Data Extraction

A total of 7 case control trials were used for the systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data Synthesis

The systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that total standardized mean difference in erector spinae muscle activation between healthy individuals vs patients with CLBP expressed in % maximum voluntary isometric contraction was 0.48 (95% confidence interval=0.21-0.74; P<.001) with the heterogeneity being I2=0% (P=.890). The electromyography (EMG) outputs showed significant differences in activation levels between the healthy and CLBP cohorts (P<.001).

Conclusions

A small effect size was found in the meta-analysis. The muscle activation levels of the erector spinae during forward propulsion were higher in CLBP individuals compared with healthy cohorts. The findings provide more clarity about the muscles that were the focus of previous research, what procedures were used to evaluate muscular contributions and what speeds the participants were moving at during the test sessions. Given the limited methodological quality of the included studies, the findings should be interpreted with caution. Future research should evaluate the effect of other factors such as walking distance and any changes in walking surfaces and gradients (ie, non-flat surfaces).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Perceived Barriers to Leisure-Time Physical Activity Among Physically Active Individuals With Spinal Cord Injury Psychometrics of Wearable Devices Measuring Physical Activity in Ambulant Children With Gait Abnormalities: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Robotic Rigor: Validity of the Kinarm End-Point Robot Visually Guided Reaching Test in Multiple Sclerosis The Effect of Sensory Reweighting on Postural Control and Cortical Activity in Parkinson's Disease: A Pilot Study The Impact of Executive Function on Retention and Compliance in Physical Therapy in Veterans
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1