Skip to main content
Download PDF

Changes of trunk muscle stiffness in individuals with low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders volume 25, Article number: 155 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common musculoskeletal conditions. People with LBP often display changes of neuromuscular control and trunk mechanical properties, including trunk stiffness. Although a few individual studies have examined back muscle stiffness in individuals with LBP, a synthesis of the evidence appears to be lacking. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to synthesize and evaluate the available literature investigating back muscle stiffness in association with LBP.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of the literature according to the PRISMA guidelines. We searched Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science and ScienceDirect for studies, that compared back muscle stiffness, measured either by ultrasound-based elastography or myotonometry, between individuals with and without LBP. Pooled data of the included studies were presented descriptively. Additionally, we performed two meta-analyses to calculate the standardized mean difference between the two groups for resting stiffness of the multifidus and erector spinae muscle. For both meta-analyses, the random effect model was used and the weight of individual studies was calculated using the inverse-variance method. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional studies. Furthermore, the certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach.

Results

Nine studies were included in our systematic review. Our results suggest that individuals with LBP have higher stiffness of the multifidus (SMD = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.15 – 0.81, p < 0.01; I2 = 48 %, p = 0.11) and erector spinae at rest (SMD = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.11 – 0.62, p < 0.01; I2 = 39 %, p = 0.14) compared to asymptomatic controls. On the other hand, the evidence regarding muscle stiffness during submaximal contractions is somewhat contradictory.

Conclusions

Based on the findings of this systematic review we conclude that people with LBP may have higher back muscle stiffness compared to asymptomatic controls. Addressing muscle stiffness might represent an important goal of LBP treatment. Nevertheless, our findings should be interpreted with extreme caution due to a limited quality of evidence, small number of included studies and differences in measurement methodology.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Low back pain (LBP) is considered one of the most prevalent and debilitating musculoskeletal conditions [1]. It affects the majority of the general population, although prevalence is the highest between the ages of 40 and 60 [2]. LBP frequently results in work absenteeism [3] and associated financial losses [4], which is a major socioeconomic burden. One of the major concerns is the development of chronic LBP and persistent symptoms. Notably, it is estimated that approximately one-third of acute LBP cases develop into chronic LBP [5]. The latter often leads to disability and reduced quality of life [6], thus having a negative impact on the individual’s psychological state [7].

The relatively high prevalence of chronic LBP and persistent symptoms (4.2 – 25.4 %) [8] may be related to changes in structural and neuromuscular properties associated with LBP. In fact, individuals with LBP often display atrophy of paraspinal muscles [9], decreased trunk muscle strength [10], endurance [11], and flexibility [12] as well as alterations in neuromuscular control [13, 14]. Furthermore, several authors have reported higher paraspinal muscle electromyographic (EMG) activity during standing [15] and walking [16]. It has been suggested that the increased muscle activity represents a spine splinting mechanism to increase trunk stiffness and protect the spine from abnormal loading and noxious stimuli [17]. However, Prins and colleagues (2017) [18] concluded in their systematic review that there is no conclusive evidence to support spinal splinting in individuals with LBP.

Despite the conflicting findings of the systematic review by Prins and colleagues (2017) [18], there are some studies reporting increased intrinsic trunk stiffness in individuals with recurrent [17] or experimentally-induced LBP [19]. Even so, measurement of intrinsic trunk stiffness does not indicate, whether potential alterations are related to muscle or connective tissue. Changes of connective tissues have been frequently associated with LBP [20, 21]. While these changes may have an impact on intrinsic trunk stiffness, their contribution has yet to be determined. Importantly, the assessment of back muscle stiffness may represent a window of opportunity to offer additional insights into changes of trunk mechanical properties in association with LBP.

Ultrasound-based measurements and myotonometry are novel approaches that enable the assessment of tissue stiffness by measuring mechanical tissue deformation. Ultrasound-based measurements include shear wave elastography (SWE) and strain elastography (STE). The former measures the velocity of propagation of an ultrasound-induced shear wave within the tissue [22], while the latter measures tissue deformation following mechanical pressure, which is applied manually from the examiner by compressing the skin and underlying tissue [23]. In contrast, myotonometry is performed using myotonometer, a device that applies small compressive forces to the skin and measures deformation of superficial tissues. Both SWE and myotonometry appear to correlate well with exerted muscle force (r = 0.82 – 0.98) [24, 25] and muscle activity (r = 0.70-0.98) [26, 27]. Additionally, both methods were proven to be reliable for measuring back muscle stiffness (SWE: ICC = 0.53 – 0.79, myotonometry: ICC = 0.81 – 0.96) [28, 29].

Current evidence from single studies suggests that people with LBP display higher back muscle stiffness compared to asymptomatic individuals [30,31,32,33]. However, due to inconsistent findings and different methodologies used to assess stiffness, a synthesis of the evidence is warranted. Therefore, the aim of our study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the changes of resting and active back muscle stiffness in relation to LBP. Our findings could offer additional insights into the relationship between trunk mechanical properties and LBP. We hypothesized that individuals with LBP have higher back muscle stiffness compared to asymptomatic individuals.

Methods

Search strategy

A systematic review of the literature was conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 (PRISMA) guidelines [34]. In August 2022 (list of publications extracted on August 1st), Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science and ScienceDirect were screened using the following search term: ("back pain"[Title] OR LBP[Title] OR "back disorder*"[Title] OR "spinal pain"[Title]) AND (myoton*[Title/Abstract] OR stiff*[Title/Abstract] OR elastography[Title/Abstract] OR elastic*[Title/Abstract] OR “mechanical properties”[Title/Abstract]). The search was updated in all databases in October 2023 (list of publications extracted on October 17th). The exact search syntaxes for each database are presented in the Supplementary 1. Two authors (RV and MV) independently searched each database for relevant studies. Additionally, reference lists of the included studies were screened for eligible records. The selected studies of both authors were combined. Potential disagreements between authors were resolved upon discussion with an independent third colleague.

Eligibility criteria

Eligibility criteria were determined using the PICO framework. Cross-sectional/case-control studies that compared stiffness of trunk muscles between adults with and without LBP were included. There were no restrictions based on participants age, duration of symptoms or LBP chronicity (e.g. acute, subacute or chronic). Muscle stiffness had to be assessed via ultrasound-based elastography (SWE or STE) or myotonometry, either during rest or submaximal contraction. Studies were excluded in case of participants with specific spinal pathologies (e.g. spinal stenosis, ankylosing spondylitis or radiculopathy), or absence of a control group. Studies with a within-subject design, comparing the painful and non-painful side, were also excluded.

Data extraction and data items

The first author (RV) collected relevant data from eligible studies. Data regarding the authors, number, age and sex of participants, measurement methodology, results and main findings were extracted and saved in an Excel sheet (Microsoft Excel, version 2016). Additionally, mean values and standard deviations were extracted from each of the included studies. Authors were contacted by email, to obtain missing data. In case of one study [30], the authors were not able to provide mean and standard deviation values, therefore we adopted their median values as the mean and calculated the standard deviation by dividing the interquartile range with 1.35.

Assessment of study quality and certainty of evidence

Two authors independently evaluated the quality of the included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional studies [35]. This tool consists of eight different items. The interpretation of certain items was slightly modified to match the study design of the included studies. For the third item, we determined, that exposure was measured in a valid and reliable way, if the authors reported the average duration of LBP symptoms. For the fourth item, the authors should have reported the level of pain or disability. Following individual assessments, the authors resolved potential disagreements by consulting a third independent colleague. Inter-rater agreement for individual items was calculated and expressed as the Kappa value. The latter was interpreted as poor (< 0.00), slight (0.00 – 0.20), fair (0.21 –  0.40), moderate (0.41 –  0.60), substantial (0.61 –  0.80) and almost perfect (0.81 –  1.00) [36]. Due to a lack of cut-off values, studies were considered as meeting a minimum of quality, when at least five items were rated “Yes” [37].

The certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach [38]. The latter encompasses 5 main domains (risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness and publication bias). The certainty of evidence for each comparison was classified as either high, moderate, low or very low. The grading was modified according to the design of included studies (cross-sectional/case-control). The level of evidence was downgraded if: (a) more than 25 % of studies did not reach the predetermined minimum of quality (risk of bias); (b) a large CI was observed or the total number of participants was < 300 (imprecision); (c) there was a substantial heterogeneity of study results (I2 > 50 % or in case of statistical significance (inconsistency); (d) the studies assessed the effects of the disease indirectly (population or outcome not representative of the research question) (indirectness); (e) there was no significant risk for publication bias.

Quantitative synthesis – meta-analysis of stiffness measures

Pooled data of included studies were presented descriptively. Additionally, we performed two meta-analyses using the Review Manager 5.4 (RevMan 5.4, The Cochrane Collaboration, United Kingdom, 2020). Prior to the analysis, we have confirmed the normality assumption for meta-analysis as described by Wang and Lee (2020) [39]. Furthermore, we performed a preliminary publication bias assessment for each meta-analysis using the Egger’s linear regression test. The first meta-analysis included studies that measured resting multifidus (MF) stiffness using SWE and STE, the other included studies that measured erector spinae (ES) stiffness, either by SWE or myotonometry. We included continuous data and calculated the weight of individual studies using the inverse-variance method. Both analyses were completed by assuming random effects and reported differences between groups as the standardized mean difference (SMD). The effect size was estimated as Cohen’s d and was interpreted as low (d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5) or large (d = 0.8) [40]. A positive effect size (SMD) value corresponds to higher muscle stiffness in the LBP compared to the control group. The heterogeneity of study results was calculated using I2. Due to a small number of included studies, I2 was interpreted as “not important” (0 – 30 %), “moderate” (31 – 50 %), “substantial” (51 – 75 %), “considerable” (76 – 100 %) [38].

Results

Search results overview

Overall, our search strategy yielded 1031 results. After duplicate removal, 405 records were screened by title and abstract. Eleven records were sought for retrieval of full publication and subsequently assessed for eligibility. One study was excluded due to absence of a control group [41] and one due to inclusion of participants with history of LBP [42]. Finally, nine studies were included in the systematic review (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA flowchart

Full size image

Qualitative synthesis

Nine studies were included in the systematic review. Altogether, 639 participants were included, 315 with and 324 without LBP. Overall, the mean age of the included participants was 39.1 years. More specifically, the mean age of participants with LBP was 40.8 years, while the mean age of participants from the control group was 37.4 years. One study included only the elderly [33], whereas the others included adults in general. One study included only male participants [43]. Six studies included only participants with chronic LBP, which was defined either as consecutive pain for more than 3 months or non-continuous pain for greater than 6 months with pain on at least half of the days [30, 32, 33, 43,44,45]. Alcaraz-Clariana et al., 2021 included participants with acute [46] and subacute [47] LBP in their two studies. On the other hand, Koppenhaver et al. [31] did not recruit participants based on the duration of LBP. Characteristics of included studies, that measured stiffness using elastography and myotonometry are presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies, that measured stiffness with elastography
Full size table
Table 2 Characteristics of included studies, that measured stiffness with myotonometry
Full size table

Four of the included studies used SWE to assess muscle stiffness [31, 32, 44, 45], one study used STE [43]. All five studies measured resting lumbar MF muscle stiffness. The probe location was either lateral to the L4-L5 interspace [32, 43, 45], L3 level [44] or at the most symptomatic level [31]. The only study that used STE and expressed muscle stiffness as the Young modulus found no difference between LBP patients and the control group [43]. Conversely, three studies that measured the shear modulus using SWE reported significantly higher resting lumbar MF stiffness in participants with LBP [31, 32, 44]. One study found no difference in resting lumbar MF shear modulus between participants with and without LBP [45]. Two of the included studies evaluated stiffness of the MF during submaximal contraction, which was achieved by performing a prone arm lift [31] or isometric trunk extension [44]. Both studies found no differences between the two groups. One study showed higher lumbar MF Young modulus during standing and forward stooping [43]. Two studies included resting ES shear modulus as an outcome measure. One found no difference between groups [32], whereas the other showed higher ES resting stiffness in individuals with LBP [31].

Four of the included studies evaluated ES myofascial stiffness using myotonometry. One study found higher stiffness in older participants with chronic LBP [33], while one reported higher stiffness only when comparing female groups [30]. Two studies did not report any differences in stiffness in individuals with acute [46] and subacute LBP [47].

Methodological quality of studies

The results of study quality assessment are presented in Table 3. Overall, the inter-rater agreement was high (97 %). Kappa values for individual items ranged from 0.73 – 1.0, indicating a substantial to almost perfect strength of agreement. For items “clearly defined inclusion criteria”, “detailed subject description”, “outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way” and “appropriate statistical analysis use” all studies met the criteria. Item “valid and reliable measurement of exposure” was met by 38 % [31,32,33], “objective criteria for measurement of condition” by 88 % [31,32,33, 43,44,45,46,47], “identified confounding factors” by 38 % [31, 43, 45] and “strategies to deal with confounding factors” by 25 % [31, 45] of the included studies. One study did not achieve the predetermined minimum of quality (at least five “Yes”).

Table 3 Study quality assessment using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-Sectional studies
Full size table

Differences between LBP patients and controls – Meta-analyses

The results of our meta-analysis (Fig. 2) revealed significantly higher resting MF stiffness in participants with LBP compared to controls with a small effect size (SMD = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.15 – 0.81, p < 0.01). The heterogeneity of study results was moderate, albeit not significant (I2 = 48 %, 95% CI: 0 – 94 % p = 0.11). The results of Egger’s test indicate a significant risk for publication bias (p = 0.04) (Supplementary 2). The certainty of evidence was low.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Meta-analysis for multifidus stiffness in people with and without low back pain

Legend: LBP low back pain, SD standard deviation

Full size image

Likewise, our meta-analysis (Fig. 3) showed significantly higher resting ES muscle stiffness in participants with LBP compared to controls with a small effect size (SMD = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.11 – 0.62, p < 0.01). The heterogeneity of study results was moderate, albeit not significant (I2 = 39 %, 95% CI: 10 – 82 %, p = 0.14). The results of Egger’s test were not significant (p = 0.21) (Supplementary 2). The certainty of evidence was moderate.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Meta-analysis for erector spinae stiffness in people with and without low back pain

Legend: LBP low back pain, SD standard deviation

Full size image

Discussion

The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to evaluate changes in muscle stiffness in individuals with LBP. Our meta-analyses revealed that resting MF and ES stiffness is significantly higher in individuals with LBP. However, the certainty of evidence was low to moderate at best, therefore our findings should be interpreted with extreme caution. In contrast, the results of studies, that measured muscle stiffness during submaximal contractions appear, to be somewhat conflicting.

Our findings indicate that in general LBP may be associated with increased resting trunk muscle stiffness. This is in some contrast with an extensive systematic review conducted by Prins et al. (2017) [18], which found no differences in trunk stiffness between individuals with and without LBP. The authors included studies that measured trunk stiffness and muscle activity following unexpected perturbations. Intrinsic trunk stiffness depends on both muscle and connective tissue stiffness. That being said, it is possible that the observed increased trunk extensor stiffness represents a compensation for altered connective tissue stiffness and therefore does not result in increased intrinsic trunk stiffness. However, since LBP is associated with increased rather than decreased connective tissue stiffness [21, 48], this should manifest as higher intrinsic trunk stiffness. Several studies included in the aforementioned review applied perturbations to the upper or lower extremities, thus including another potential source of compensatory strategies that could influence trunk kinematics (e.g. elbow or hip movements). Also, the majority of studies measured EMG activity as the primary outcome, which does not per se reflect trunk mechanical properties.

Muscle stiffness appears to correlate well with muscle force [24] and EMG activity [27]. The observed higher levels of trunk muscle stiffness in individuals with LBP could be associated with increased EMG muscle activity. Indeed, individuals with LBP often show increased trunk muscle activity during standing [15], walking [16] or forward flexion [49]. Nevertheless, in a recent review, Van Dieën et al. (2019) [50] concluded that changes in muscle activity and motor control in individuals with LBP display high intra- and interindividual variability. In fact, while some studies reported increased trunk muscle activity during standing [51], others found either no differences [52] or even lower activity levels [53]. The authors added that the heterogeneous nature of LBP should be taken into account when studying associations between motor control and LBP. In addition to muscle activity, the stiffness of a muscle is also determined by its structural and morphological characteristics. Changes in MF structure and morphology, such as atrophy and fat infiltration, have been previously described in individuals with LBP [54]. However, these changes are in odds with our results, as both atrophy [55, 56] and fat infiltration [57] are associated with decreased muscle stiffness. Our findings could be explained by other morphological changes. For instance, experimentally induced intervertebral disc degeneration in animal specimens seems to lead to a more pronounced increase in muscle bundle compared to muscle fibre stiffness, which is most likely associated with proliferation of connective tissue [58]. In terms of fibre distribution, LBP can lead to a transition from type I to type II muscle fibres of the MF [59]. Type II fibres have been shown to be less stiff compared to type I [60], hence a reduction in muscle stiffness would be expected. However, since type II fibres are less fatigue-resistant, it is possible that muscles may exhibit higher levels of fatigue throughout daily activities. Kumamoto and colleagues (2021) [61] found that a 60-s bout of sustained trunk extension resulted in increased MF stiffness. Accordingly, fatiguing of type II fibres in individuals with LBP might lead to increased muscle stiffness. Conversely, study findings from other muscle groups suggest that resting muscle stiffness either remains unchanged [62] or decreases [63] following fatiguing protocols, hence definitive conclusions cannot be drawn. In summary, although the exact underlying mechanism of increased trunk muscle stiffness in LBP is yet to be proven, it is clear that several factors may play an important role.

Although our meta-analysis revealed a significant difference in resting MF stiffness between participants with and without LBP, two studies found no differences between groups [43, 45]. Chan and colleagues (2012) [43] assessed stiffness using the STE, which seems to be more examiner-dependent compared to SWE [64]. Pinto et al. (2022) [45] on the other hand utilized SWE and obtained substantially higher (43.3 kPa) values of resting MF stiffness compared to the other included studies (4.8 – 6.8 kPa). Conversely, with the exception of Wu et al. (2019) [33], all studies that measured trunk extensor stiffness using myotonometry found no differences between participants with and without LBP. Among these, two included only participants with acute [46] and subacute LBP [47]. Thus, it is plausible that changes in muscle stiffness could be specific to chronic LBP. Yet, Ilahi et al. (2020) [30] included participants with chronic LBP and found no differences when analyzing both genders, although a significant difference was observed when only female subjects were compared. Importantly, we must consider the limitations of myotonometry, when interpreting the findings of the aforementioned studies. Myotonometry measures the mechanical deformation of superficial tissues following the application of a compressive force. Therefore, tissues other than muscle, such as superficial connective tissue and subcutaneous fat may also affect the results. Not surprisingly, Bravo-Sanchez et al. (2021) [30] reported a positive correlation between thigh superficial connective tissue thickness, determined by magnetic resonance imaging, and muscle stiffness, measured with myotonometry. Individuals with LBP were shown to have a higher cross-sectional area of the superficial thoracolumbar fascia [21], thus it is plausible that increased stiffness might be partially related to changes of the connective tissue and not by the changes in the muscle itself.

The evidence regarding changes in MF stiffness during submaximal contraction in people with LBP is somewhat conflicting. Two of the included studies found no differences in active MF stiffness [31, 44]. Murillo et al. [44] measured muscle stiffness during an isometric trunk extension test, whereas Koppenhaver et al., 2020 [31] used the prone contralateral arm lift test. Although this test has been shown to elicit contraction and increased activity of the MF [65], one must be cautious when interpreting their results. Indeed, during this task intermuscular coordination and muscle activity could vary considerably between individuals. This is partially supported by a relatively high standard deviation compared to the mean (22.6 ± 9.8) reported by the authors. In contrast to the previously mentioned studies, Chan et al. 2012 [43] observed increased MF stiffness in individuals with LBP during static forward stooping (25 and 45° spinal flexion). Although we cannot conclusively determine the origin of this finding, we offer some possible explanations. During forward stooping the spine assumes a forward flexed position. In this position the forces acting on the spine differ from loading close to a neutral position in standing. More specifically, the spine is subjected to shear forces, leading to an increased need for stability [66]. Consequently, the central nervous system increases trunk muscle coactivation to meet stability demands, resulting in increased muscle stiffness. In individuals with LBP this increase in trunk bracing could be more pronounced due to impaired motor control [50], which would explain higher levels of muscle stiffness. Furthermore, individuals with LBP often adopt the belief that their spine needs to be protected during bending [67]. Increased muscle activity and stiffness might represent a strategy to deal with this belief. To the best of our knowledge, there are currently no studies using myotonometry for assessment of muscle stiffness during submaximal contraction in people with LBP.

A higher degree of muscle stiffness might be an important factor in the occurrence or persistence of LBP symptoms and disability. In an acute episode of LBP elevated trunk muscle stiffness could limit excessive spinal movement, thus likely protecting the spine from harmful loads and further injury [17]. Conversely, long-term increases in muscle stiffness could result in increased compressive forces on the spine [68], possibly leading to facet joint or intervertebral disc impairments. Also, increased muscle stiffness could lead to decreased movement efficiency and an associated higher energy expenditure. All things considered, reduction of muscle stiffness could be one of the goals when treating LBP patients. Interestingly, research has shown that some of the frequently applied physiotherapeutic interventions in LBP treatment such as dry needling [69], sustained natural apophyseal glides [70], electrotherapy and myofascial release [71] lead to a reduction of muscle stiffness. While it is not clear whether this reduction in stiffness is mediated by improvement in pain or vice versa, it does indicate a potential role of addressing muscle stiffness in LBP management. In terms of examination, muscle stiffness assessment might be useful to evaluate progress of patients with LBP in clinical settings. In this context, myotonometry might be a more suitable option due to its practical applicability.

Limitations

Finally, some limitations of our review should be noted. First, we included only case-control studies, therefore based on the findings of included studies we cannot infer on a cause-effect relationship. In this regard, future prospective studies are warranted. Second, for our first meta-analysis on MF stiffness we found a significant risk for publication bias, as calculated by the Egger’s regression test. Notably, the studies with the highest effect sizes included smaller samples and had the highest 95% CI intervals. Therefore, we cannot exclude the possibility that smaller studies with contradictory findings have not been published. With regards to our second meta-analysis we included studies which supposedly measured ES stiffness, regardless of the used method. Although myotonometry does measure ES stiffness to some extent, other tissues such as thoracolumbar fascia and subcutaneous fat, may influence the results. Furthermore, we observed moderate heterogeneity with very large 95% CI for both comparisons, thus we emphasize the importance of extreme caution when interpreting the results of our study. Another limitation is the lack of comparison between males and females. Moreover, on average the included studies achieved the predetermined minimum of quality, although the majority did not consider possible confounding factors, that could have influenced their results. We strongly recommend future studies to consider possible confounding factors and adopt appropriate strategies to deal with them. Lastly, although a comprehensive search of the literature was conducted, there remains grey literature, such as unpublished studies and conference papers, that was not considered in the search.

Conclusions

The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to investigate changes in trunk muscle stiffness in relation to LBP. Our findings suggest that there is low to moderate certainty of evidence of higher resting MF and ES stiffness in individuals with LBP compared with asymptomatic controls. On the other hand, evidence for altered MF stiffness during submaximal contraction is somewhat conflicting. All things considered, we advise extreme caution when interpreting our study results, due to a limited certainty of evidence, small number of included studies and differences in methodology of tissue stiffness assessment.

Practical implications

Increased back muscle stiffness could play a role in the persistence of symptoms and could represent a potential treatment goal in LBP management. Additionally, muscle stiffness may be used as an outcome measure for the evaluation of progress in patients with LBP.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

LBP:

Low back pain

EMG:

Electromyography

SWE:

Shear-wave elastography

STE:

Strain elastography

MF:

m. multifidus

ES:

m. erector spinae

SMD:

Standardized mean difference

References

  1. Hoy D, March L, Brooks P, Woolf A, Blyth F, Vos T, et al. Measuring the global burden of low back pain [Internet]. Vol. 24, Best Practice and Research: Clinical Rheumatology. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol; 2010 [cited 2022 Aug 26]. p. 155–65. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20227638/

  2. Hoy D, Bain C, Williams G, March L, Brooks P, Blyth F, et al. A systematic review of the global prevalence of low back pain [Internet]. Vol. 64, Arthritis and Rheumatism. Arthritis Rheum; 2012 [cited 2022 Aug 26]. p. 2028–37. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22231424/

  3. Widanarko B, Legg S, Stevenson M, Devereux J, Eng A, ’t Mannetje A, et al. Prevalence and work-related risk factors for reduced activities and absenteeism due to low back symptoms. Appl Ergon [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2022 Aug 26];43(4):727–37. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22123534/

  4. Olafsson G, Jonsson E, Fritzell P, Hägg O, Borgström F. Cost of low back pain: results from a national register study in Sweden. Eur Spine J [Internet]. 2018 Nov 1 [cited 2022 Aug 26];27(11):2875–81. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30155730/

  5. Stevans JM, Delitto A, Khoja SS, Patterson CG, Smith CN, Schneider MJ, et al. Risk Factors Associated With Transition From Acute to Chronic Low Back Pain in US Patients Seeking Primary Care. JAMA Netw open [Internet]. 2021 Feb 1 [cited 2022 Aug 26];4(2):e2037371. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33591367/

  6. Darzi MT, Pourhadi S, Hosseinzadeh S, Ahmadi MH, Dadian M. Comparison of quality of life in low back pain patients and healthy subjects by using WHOQOL-BREF. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2022 Aug 26];27(4):507–12. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24867899/

  7. Mathew J, Singh SB, Garis S, Diwan AD. Backing up the stories: The psychological and social costs of chronic low-back pain. Int J Spine Surg. 2013;7(1):29 [cited 2022 Aug 26]. Available from: https://0-www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.brum.beds.ac.uk/pmc/articles/PMC4300970/.

  8. Meucci RD, Fassa AG, Xavier Faria NM. Prevalence of chronic low back pain: Systematic review. Rev Saude Publica. 2015;49(73):1–10

  9. Goubert D, De Pauw R, Meeus M, Willems T, Cagnie B, Schouppe S, et al. Lumbar muscle structure and function in chronic versus recurrent low back pain: a cross-sectional study. Spine J. 2017;17(9):1285–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Catalá MM, Schroll A, Laube G, Arampatzis A. Muscle strength and neuromuscular control in low-back pain: Elite athletes versus general population. Front Neurosci. 2018;3:12. [cited 2022 Aug 26].Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC6037821/

  11. Pääsuke M, Johanson E, Proosa M, Ereline J, Gapeyeva H. Back extensor muscle fatigability in chronic low back pain patients and controls: Relationship between electromyogram power spectrum changes and body mass index. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2002;16(1):17–24. [cited 2022 Aug 26]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22387360/

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Reis FJJ, Macedo AR. Influence of hamstring tightness in pelvic, lumbar and trunk range of motion in low back pain and asymptomatic volunteers during forward bending. Asian Spine J. 2015;9(4):535–40. [cited 2022 Aug 26].  Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26240711/

  13. Larivière C, Forget R, Vadeboncoeur R, Bilodeau M, Mecheri H. The effect of sex and chronic low back pain on back muscle reflex responses. Eur J Appl Physiol .2010;109(4):577–90.  [cited 2022 Aug 26]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20174929/

  14. Massé-Alarie H, Flamand VH, Moffet H, Schneider C. Corticomotor control of deep abdominal muscles in chronic low back pain and anticipatory postural adjustments. Exp Brain Res. 2012;218(1):99–109. [cited 2022 Aug 26]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22311467/Available from:

  15. Van Dieën JH, Selen LPJ, Cholewicki J. Trunk muscle activation in low-back pain patients, an analysis of the literature. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2003;13(4):333–51. [cited 2022 Aug 9]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12832164/

  16. Smith JA, Stabbert H, Bagwell JJ, Teng H-L, Wade V, Lee S-P. Do people with low back pain walk differently? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sport Heal Sci. 2022;11(4). [cited 2022 Aug 9]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35151908/

  17. Hodges P, van den Hoorn W, Dawson A, Cholewicki J. Changes in the mechanical properties of the trunk in low back pain may be associated with recurrence. J Biomech. 2009;42(1):61–6.  [cited 2022 Aug 9]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19062020/

  18. Prins MR, Griffioen M, Veeger TTJ, Kiers H, Meijer OG, van der Wurff P, et al. Evidence of splinting in low back pain? A systematic review of perturbation studies. Vol. 27, European Spine Journal. Eur Spine J. 2018 p. 40–59. [cited 2022 Nov 24] Available from:  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28900711/

  19. Miller EM, Bazrgari B, Nussbaum MA, Madigan ML. Effects of exercise-induced low back pain on intrinsic trunk stiffness and paraspinal muscle reflexes. J Biomech [Internet]. 2013;46(4):801–5.  [cited 2022 Aug 26]. Available from: https://0-www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.brum.beds.ac.uk/pmc/articles/PMC4300970/

  20. Kovacs FM, Arana E, Royuela A, Estremera A, Amengual G, Asenjo B, et al. Disc degeneration and chronic low back pain: An association which becomes nonsignificant when endplate changes and disc contour are taken into account. Neuroradiology. 2014;56(1):25–33. [cited 2022 Sep 30].  Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24190653/

  21. Langevin HM, Stevens-Tuttle D, Fox JR, Badger GJ, Bouffard NA, Krag MH, et al. Ultrasound evidence of altered lumbar connective tissue structure in human subjects with chronic low back pain. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2009;10(1).  [cited 2022 Sep 30]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19958536/

  22. Blank J, Blomquist M, Arant L, Cone S, Roth J. Characterizing Musculoskeletal Tissue Mechanics Based on Shear Wave Propagation: A Systematic Review of Current Methods and Reported Measurements. Vol. 50, Annals of Biomedical Engineering. Ann Biomed Eng; 2022 p. 751–68. [cited 2022 Aug 26].  Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35359250/

  23. Ewertsen C, Carlsen JF, Christiansen IR, Jensen JA, Nielsen MB. Evaluation of healthy muscle tissue by strain and shear wave elastography - Dependency on depth and ROI position in relation to underlying bone. Ultrasonics [Internet]. 2016;71:127–33. [cited 2022 Aug 26].  Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27336792/

  24. Ateş F, Hug F, Bouillard K, Jubeau M, Frappart T, Couade M, et al. Muscle shear elastic modulus is linearly related to muscle torque over the entire range of isometric contraction intensity. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2015;25(4):703–8.  [cited 2022 Aug 22]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25956546/

  25. Gubler-Hanna C, Laskin J, Marx BJ, Leonard CT. Construct validity of myotonometric measurements of muscle compliance as a measure of strength. Physiol Meas. 2007;28(8):913–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Leonard CT, Brown JS, Price TR, Queen SA, Mikhailenok EL. Comparison of surface electromyography and myotonometric measurements during voluntary isometric contractions. J Electromyogr Kinesio. 2004;14(6):709–14.  [cited 2022 Oct 13]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15491846/

  27. Nordez A, Hug F. Muscle shear elastic modulus measured using supersonic shear imaging is highly related to muscle activity level. J Appl Physiol [Internet]. 2010;108(5):1389–94. [cited 2022 Aug 22].  Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20167669/

  28. Hu X, Lei D, Li L, Leng Y, Yu Q, Wei X, et al. Quantifying paraspinal muscle tone and stiffness in young adults with chronic low back pain: a reliability study. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1). [cited 2022 Aug 26].  Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30254233/

  29. Koppenhaver S, Kniss J, Lilley D, Oates M, Fernández-de-las-Peñas C, Maher R, et al. Reliability of ultrasound shear-wave elastography in assessing low back musculature elasticity in asymptomatic individuals. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2018;39:49–57. [cited 2022 Aug 26]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29413453/

  30. Ilahi S, T. Masi A, White A, Devos A, Henderson J, Nair K. Quantified biomechanical properties of lower lumbar myofascia in younger adults with chronic idiopathic low back pain and matched healthy controls. Clin Biomech. 2020;73:78–85.  [cited 2022 Aug 8]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31954272/

  31. Koppenhaver S, Gaffney E, Oates A, Eberle L, Young B, Hebert J, et al. Lumbar muscle stiffness is different in individuals with low back pain than asymptomatic controls and is associated with pain and disability, but not common physical examination findings. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2020;1(45):102078.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Masaki M, Aoyama T, Murakami T, Yanase K, Ji X, Tateuchi H, et al. Association of low back pain with muscle stiffness and muscle mass of the lumbar back muscles, and sagittal spinal alignment in young and middle-aged medical workers. Clin Biomech. 2017;49:128–33.  [cited 2022 Aug 8].  Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28934633/

  33. Wu Z, Ye X, Ye Z, Hong K, Chen Z, Wang Y, et al. Asymmetric Biomechanical Properties of the Paravertebral Muscle in Elderly Patients With Unilateral Chronic Low Back Pain: A Preliminary Study. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022;10(10):88.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, The PRISMA, et al. statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Rev Panam Salud Publica/Pan Am J Public Heal. 2020;2022:46.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ma LL, Wang YY, Yang ZH, Huang D, Weng H, Zeng XT. Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: What are they and which is better? Mil Med Res. 2020;7(1).

  36. Landis JR, Koch GG. The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lee JH, Suh Y, Kim Y. Multidimensional factors affecting homebound older adults: A systematic review. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2022;54(2):169–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester, West Sussex ; Hoboken NJ : John Wiley & Sons, [2008] ©2008; 2019. 1–694 p. Available from: https://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/9910060197402121

  39. Wang CC, Lee WC. Evaluation of the Normality Assumption in Meta-Analyses. Am J Epidemiol. 2020;189(3):235–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Cohen J. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). [Internet]. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 1988. 274–287 p. Available from: https://www.scirp.org/(S(lz5mqp453edsnp55rrgjct55))/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=2041144

  41. Li Y, Yu J, Zhang J, Zhang Z, Wang X. Quantifying the stiffness of lumbar erector spinae during different positions among participants with chronic low back pain. PLoS One. 2022;17(6):e0270286.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Miyamori T, Saito T, Aoyagi M, Nozu S, Masui Y, Ishihara Y, et al. Differences in the elastic modulus of the lumbar muscles between female athletes with and without low back pain. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2023;105:105968.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Chan ST, Fung PK, Ng NY, Ngan TL, Chong MY, Tang CN, et al. Dynamic changes of elasticity, cross-sectional area, and fat infiltration of multifidus at different postures in men with chronic low back pain. Spine J. 2012;12(5):381–8.  [cited 2022 Aug 8]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22197782/

  44. Murillo C, Falla D, Sanderson A, Rushton A, Heneghan NR. Shear wave elastography investigation of multifidus stiffness in individuals with low back pain. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2019;47:19–24.  [cited 2022 Aug 8]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31077992/

  45. Pinto SM, Cheung JPY, Samartzis D, Karppinen J, Zheng YP, Pang MYC, et al. Are Morphometric and Biomechanical Characteristics of Lumbar Multifidus Related to Pain Intensity or Disability in People With Chronic Low Back Pain After Considering Psychological Factors or Insomnia? Front Psychiatry [Internet]. 2022 Apr 15 [cited 2022 Aug 8];13. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35492728/

  46. Alcaraz-Clariana S, García-Luque L, Garrido-Castro JL, Fernández-De-las-peñas C, Carmona-Pérez C, Rodrigues-De-souza DP, et al. Paravertebral muscle mechanical properties and spinal range of motion in patients with acute neck or low back pain: A case-control study. Diagnostics. 2021;11(2).  [cited 2022 Aug 8]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33672470/

  47. Alcaraz-Clariana S, García-Luque L, Garrido-Castro JL, Aranda-Valera IC, Ladehesa-Pineda L, Puche-Larrubia MÁ, et al. Paravertebral muscle mechanical properties in patients with axial spondyloarthritis or low back pain: A case-control study. Diagnostics. 2021;11(10). [cited 2022 Aug 8].  Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34679595/

  48. Walter BA, Mageswaran P, Mo X, Boulter DJ, Mashaly H, Nguyen X V., et al. MR elastography-derived stiffness: A biomarker for intervertebral disc degeneration. Radiology [Internet]. 2017;285(1):167–75.  [cited 2022 Sep 30]. Available from: https://0-www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.brum.beds.ac.uk/pmc/articles/PMC4300970/

  49. Gouteron A, Tabard-Fougère A, Bourredjem A, Casillas JM, Armand S, Genevay S. The flexion relaxation phenomenon in nonspecific chronic low back pain: prevalence, reproducibility and flexion–extension ratios. A systematic review and meta-analysis [Internet]. Vol. 31, European Spine Journal. Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH; 2022 [cited 2022 Aug 9]. p. 136–51. Available from: https://0-link-springer-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/article/https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/s00586-021-06992-0

  50. Van Dieën JH, Peter Reeves N, Kawchuk G, Van Dillen LR, Hodges PW. Motor control changes in low back pain: Divergence in presentations and mechanisms. Vol. 49, Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy. NIH Public Access. 2019;p. 370–9. [cited 2022 Nov 23]. Available from: https://0-www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.brum.beds.ac.uk/pmc/articles/PMC4300970/

  51. Ambroz C, Scott A, Ambroz A, Talbott EO. Chronic low back pain assessment using surface electromyography. J Occup Environ Med. 2000;42(6):660–9.  [cited 2022 Nov 23]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10874660/

  52. Cram JR, Steger JC. EMG scanning in the diagnosis of chronic pain. Biofeedback Self Regul. 1983;8(2):229–41.  [cited 2022 Nov 23]. Available from: https://0-link-springer-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/article/https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/BF00998853

  53. Kaigle AM, Wessberg P, Hansson TH. Muscular and kinematic behavior of the lumbar spine during flexion- extension. J Spinal Disord. 1998;11(2):163–74.  [cited 2022 Nov 23]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9588475/

  54. Goubert D, van Oosterwijck J, Meeus M, Danneels L. Structural changes of lumbar muscles in non-specific low back pain. Vol. 19, Pain Physician. 2016;p. E985–1000.  [cited 2022 Aug 22]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27676689/

  55. Bravo-Sánchez A, Abián P, Sánchez-Infante J, Esteban-Gacía P, Jiménez F, Abián-Vicén J. Objective assessment of regional stiffness in vastus lateralis with different measurement methods: A reliability study. Sensors. 2021;21(9). [cited 2022 Sep 8]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34066343/

  56. Sun Y, Xiao Y, Li F, Wang CZ, Wu TX, Zhou MW, et al. Diagnosing muscle atrophy by use of a comprehensive method of assessing the elastic properties of muscle during passive stretching. Am J Roentgenol. 2020;214(4):862–70.  [cited 2022 Sep 8]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31887095/

  57. Rosskopf AB, Ehrmann C, Buck FM, Gerber C, Flück M, Pfirrmann CWA. Quantitative shear-wave US elastography of the supraspinatus muscle: Reliability of the method and relation to tendon integrity and muscle quality. Radiology. 2016;278(2):465–74. [cited 2022 Sep 8]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26540450/Available from:

  58. Brown SHM, Gregory DE, Carr JA, Ward SR, Masuda K, Lieber RL. ISSLS prize winner: Adaptations to the multifidus muscle in response to experimentally induced intervertebral disc degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36(21):1728–36.  [cited 2022 Aug 22]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21301396/

  59. Mannion AF, Weber BR, Dvorak J, Grob D, Muntener M. Fibre type characteristics of the lumbar paraspinal muscles in normal healthy subjects and in patients with low back pain. J Orthop Res. 1997;15(6):881–7.  [cited 2022 Aug 22]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9497814/

  60. Goubel F, Marini JF. Fibre type transition and stiffness modification of soleus muscle of trained rats. Pflügers Arch Eur J Physiol. 1987;410(3):321–5.  [cited 2022 Sep 8]. Available from: https://0-link-springer-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/article/https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/BF00580283

  61. Kumamoto T, Seko T, Matsuda R, Miura S. Repeated standing back extension exercise: Influence on muscle shear modulus change after lumbodorsal muscle fatigue. Work . 2021;68(4):1229. [cited 2022 Sep 7]. Available from: https://0-www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.brum.beds.ac.uk/pmc/articles/PMC4300970/

  62. Morel B, Hug F, Nordez A, Pournot H, Besson T, Mathevon L, et al. Reduced Active Muscle Stiffness after Intermittent Submaximal Isometric Contractions. Med Sci Sports Exerc . 2019;51(12):2603–9. [cited 2022 Nov 23]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31269006/

  63. Chalchat E, Gennisson JL, Peñailillo L, Oger M, Malgoyre A, Charlot K, et al. Changes in the Viscoelastic Properties of the Vastus Lateralis Muscle With Fatigue. Front Physiol. 2020;11. [cited 2022 Nov 23].  Available from: https://0-www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.brum.beds.ac.uk/pmc/articles/PMC4300970/

  64. Brandenburg JE, Eby SF, Song P, Zhao H, Brault JS, Chen S, et al. Ultrasound elastography: The new frontier in direct measurement of muscle stiffness. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(11):2207–19.  [cited 2022 Aug 23]. Available from: https://0-www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.brum.beds.ac.uk/pmc/articles/PMC4300970/

  65. Kiesel KB, Uhl TL, Underwood FB, Rodd DW, Nitz AJ. Measurement of lumbar multifidus muscle contraction with rehabilitative ultrasound imaging. Man Ther. 2007;12(2):161–6. [cited 2022 Aug 25]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16973400/

  66. Gallagher S, Marras WS. Tolerance of the lumbar spine to shear: A review and recommended exposure limits. Vol. 27, Clinical Biomechanics. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2012 . p. 973–8. [cited 2022 Sep 8].  Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22967740/

  67. Singh G, Newton C, O’Sullivan K, Soundy A, Heneghan NR. Exploring the lived experience and chronic low back pain beliefs of English-speaking Punjabi and white British people: A qualitative study within the NHS. BMJ Open. 2018;8(2):e020108. [cited 2022 Sep 8]. Available from: https://0-bmjopen-bmj-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/content/8/2/e020108

  68. O’Sullivan P. Diagnosis and classification of chronic low back pain disorders: Maladaptive movement and motor control impairments as underlying mechanism. Man Ther. 2005;10(4):242–55. [cited 2023 Feb 24].  Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16154380/

  69. Koppenhaver SL, Weaver AM, Randall TL, Hollins RJ, Young BA, Hebert JJ, et al. Effect of dry needling on lumbar muscle stiffness in patients with low back pain: A double blind, randomized controlled trial using shear wave elastography. J Man Manip Ther. 2022;30(3):154–64.  [cited 2022 Sep 8].  Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34525901/

  70. Cirak YB, Yurdaisik I, Elbasi ND, Tutuneken YE, Koce K, Cinar B, et al. Effect of Sustained Natural Apophyseal Glides on Stiffness of Lumbar Stabilizer Muscles in Patients With Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Randomized Controlled Trial. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2021;44(6):445–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Tamartash H, Bahrpeyma F, Mokhtari dizaji M. Comparative effect of lumbar myofascial release with electrotherapy on the elastic modulus of lumbar fascia and pain in patients with non-specific low back pain. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2022;29:9–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The study was supported by the Slovenian Research Agency through the research program KINSPO - Kinesiology for the effectiveness and prevention of musculoskeletal injuries in sports (P5-0443). Additionally, we would like to acknowledge the contributions of dr. Žiga Kozinc and Anja Zobec.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Primorska, Polje 42, 6310, Izola, Slovenia

    Rok Vatovec & Matej Voglar

Authors
  1. Rok Vatovec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matej Voglar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Both authors (RV and MV) made substantial contributions to the design of the work and screened all databases for relevant publications. RV extracted relevant data of the included studies. Both authors (RV and MV) contributed to writing and have approved the submitted version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matej Voglar.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vatovec, R., Voglar, M. Changes of trunk muscle stiffness in individuals with low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 25, 155 (2024). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12891-024-07241-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12891-024-07241-3

Keywords

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2474

Contact us