Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Laterality judgments in people with low back pain-a cross-sectional observational and test-retest reliability study
Ystad Rehab Center.
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Health Sciences, Health and Rehab.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0112-4657
Luleå University of Technology, Department of Health Sciences, Health and Rehab.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3901-0364
Number of Authors: 32016 (English)In: Manual Therapy, ISSN 1356-689X, E-ISSN 1532-2769, Vol. 21, p. 128-133Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

BackgroundDisruption of cortical representation, or body schema, has been indicated as a factor in the persistence and recurrence of LBP. This has been observed through impaired laterality judgment ability and it has been suggested that this ability is affected in a spatial rather than anatomical manner.ObjectivesWe compared laterality judgment performance of foot and trunk movements between people with LBP with or without leg pain and healthy controls, and investigated associations between test performance and pain. We also assessed the test-retest reliability of the Recognise OnlineTM software when used in a clinical and a home setting.DesignCross-sectional observational and test-retest study.MethodsThirty individuals with LBP and 30 healthy controls performed judgment tests of foot and trunk laterality once supervised in a clinic and twice at home.ResultsNo statistically significant group differences were found. LBP intensity was negatively related to trunk laterality accuracy (p=0.019). Intraclass correlation values ranged from 0.51-0.91. Reaction time improved significantly between test occasions while accuracy did not.ConclusionsLaterality judgments were not impaired in subjects with LBP compared to controls. Further research may clarify the relationship between pain mechanisms in LBP and laterality judgment ability. Reliability values were mostly acceptable, with wide and low confidence intervals, suggesting test retest reliability for Recognise OnlineTM could be questioned in this trial. A significant learning effect was observed which should be considered in clinical and research application of the test.

Abstract [en]

Background: Disruption of cortical representation, or body schema, has been indicated as a factor in the persistence and recurrence of low back pain (LBP). This has been observed through impaired laterality judgment ability and it has been suggested that this ability is affected in a spatial rather than anatomical manner. Objectives: We compared laterality judgment performance of foot and trunk movements between people with LBP with or without leg pain and healthy controls, and investigated associations between test performance and pain. We also assessed the test-retest reliability of the Recognise Online™ software when used in a clinical and a home setting. Design: Cross-sectional observational and test-retest study. Methods: Thirty individuals with LBP and 30 healthy controls performed judgment tests of foot and trunk laterality once supervised in a clinic and twice at home. Results: No statistically significant group differences were found. LBP intensity was negatively related to trunk laterality accuracy (p = 0.019). Intraclass correlation values ranged from 0.51 to 0.91. Reaction time improved significantly between test occasions while accuracy did not. Conclusions: Laterality judgments were not impaired in subjects with LBP compared to controls. Further research may clarify the relationship between pain mechanisms in LBP and laterality judgment ability. Reliability values were mostly acceptable, with wide and low confidence intervals, suggesting test-retest reliability for Recognise Online™ could be questioned in this trial. A significant learning effect was observed which should be considered in clinical and research application of the test

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2016. Vol. 21, p. 128-133
National Category
Physiotherapy
Research subject
Physiotherapy
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:ltu:diva-6501DOI: 10.1016/j.math.2015.07.001ISI: 000373615100017PubMedID: 26198686Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84952863678Local ID: 4bb06efe-14bb-43d8-806e-2130f208b428OAI: oai:DiVA.org:ltu-6501DiVA, id: diva2:979386
Note

Validerad; 2016; Nivå 2; 20150715 (andbra)

Available from: 2016-09-29 Created: 2016-09-29 Last updated: 2018-07-10Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records BETA

Michaelson, PeterRöijezon, Ulrik

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Michaelson, PeterRöijezon, Ulrik
By organisation
Health and Rehab
In the same journal
Manual Therapy
Physiotherapy

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 225 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf