A systematic review and meta analysis of measurement properties for the flexion relaxation ratio in people with and without non specific spine pain.

This review sought to identify, critically appraise, compare, and summarize the literature on the reliability, discriminative validity and responsiveness of the flexion relaxation ratio (FRR) in adults (≥ 18 years old) with or without spine pain (any duration), in either a clinical or research context. The review protocol was registered on Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/27EDF ) and follows COSMIN, PRISMA, and PRESS guidelines. Six databases were searched from inception to June 1, 2022. The search string was developed by content experts and a health services librarian. Two pairs of reviewers independently completed titles/abstracts and full text screening for inclusion, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment (COSMIN RoB Toolkit). At all stages, discrepancies were resolved through consensus meetings. Data were pooled where possible with a three-level random effects meta-analyses and a modified GRADE assessment was used for the summary of findings. Following duplicate removal, 728 titles/abstracts and 219 full texts were screened with 23 included in this review. We found, with moderate certainty of evidence, that the cervical FRR has high test-retest reliability and lumbar FRR has moderate to high test-retest reliability, and with high certainty of evidence that the cervical and lumbar FRR can discriminate between healthy and clinical groups (standardized mean difference - 1.16 [95% CI - 2.00, - 0.32] and - 1.21 [- 1.84, - 0.58] respectively). There was not enough evidence to summarize findings for thoracic FRR discriminative validity or the standard error of measurement for the FRR. Several studies used FRR assuming responsiveness, but no studies were designed in a way that could confirm responsiveness. The evidence supports adequate reliability of FRR for the cervical and lumbar spine, and discriminative validity for the cervical and lumbar spine only. Improvements in study design and reporting are needed to strengthen the evidence base to determine the remaining measurement properties of this outcome.

An investigation of the flexion relaxation ratio in adults with and without a history of self-reported low back pain and transient sitting-induced pain.

It is unknown whether the presence of sitting-induced pain or a clinical history of low back pain (LBP) changes spine function outcomes such as the flexion relaxation ratio (FRR). The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether sitting-induced pain or a history of non-specific LBP results in a different FRR. Forty-seven participants were instrumented with surface electromyography over erector spinae at L1, and accelerometers at L1 and S2. Standing maximum lumbar flexion trials were taken preceding and following a 1-hour sitting trial. Pain ratings during sitting and history of LBP were used to group participants for analysis. FRR values taken after the sitting exposures were compared between those that did and did not develop pain during sitting. Baseline FRR values were compared participants with and without a history of LBP. No significant differences in FRR were found for either pain groups (p = 0.11) or clinical history (p = 0.85). Lack of differences may be due to participants not currently experiencing a clinical episode of pain when the ratio was measured and/or because 1-hour sitting exposure was not long enough to induce pain modulation. The findings suggest that neither sitting-induced pain development or clinical history need to be controlled to prevent confounding of FRR.

Systematic analysis of different low-pass filter cut-off frequencies on lumbar spine kinematics data and the impact on the agreement between accelerometers and an optoelectronic system.

A necessary step in the validation of accelerometers for the measurement of spine angles is to determine the levels of agreement with current gold standard methods. However, agreement may be a function of filtering parameters. We aimed to (1) systematically determine the effect of different filter frequency cut-offs on the peak range of motion (ROM) during forward bending as measured by accelerometers and an optoelectronic (OE) system, (2) explore the influence of filtering on agreement between systems, and (3) determine the difference in peak ROM measurement between these systems. Accelerometers and OE sensors were attached at L2, L4, and S1 of 20 asymptomatic female participants for a guided flexion trial. Signals were then iteratively low-pass filtered with cut-off frequencies ranging from 14 Hz to 1 Hz and peak range of motion outcome measures were compared between systems. Peak ROM was minimally affected by filter cut-off frequency for both accelerometer and OE system. The difference in peak ROM between difference cut-off frequencies were maximum 0.66°, median 0.18° and minimum 0.06° for accelerometer derived values and maximum 0.23°, median 0.08° and minimum 0.03° for the OE system. The maximum difference across the filtering frequencies was 0.62° and the largest difference between the two systems (with outliers removed) was 0.82°. Cut-off frequencies ranging from 14 to 1 Hz had little effect of peak lumbar spine ROM during low velocity (6°/s) forward bending, regardless of motion capture method. Filtering cut-off frequency had little effect on the differences between the accelerometer and OE system and similar measurements can be achieved using accelerometers compared to OE systems.

Monitoring calf circumference: changes during prolonged constrained sitting.

Prolonged sitting has been associated with negative health effects; however, short-term time-varying exposure and response data is lacking. Twenty-two young and healthy participants were seated for 2 hours with the instruction to avoid the confounding effects of large leg movements while calf circumference, perceived discomfort, and lower limb muscle activity were collected. Calf circumference increased significantly (0.90 ± 0.32 cm) during sitting with no statistical differences between sexes. Perceived discomfort increased significantly over time in the low back and gluteal regions (p = 0.001-0.072, ηp2=0.080-0.360). On average, it took 20.31 ± 10.87 minutes of walking for calf measures to return to pre-sitting baseline. These results suggest that sitting for 2 hours without activity breaks may not be advisable and that recovery may take longer than expected. The exposure/response data from this study may be helpful in the design of future studies, with a larger and more general population, aiming to better define recommended duration/activity ratios for sitting-focused occupations. Practitioner summary: Leg swelling is a concern in prolonged sitting. In this study of young, healthy participants, we found a 2 hour constrained sitting exposure (controlling for large leg movements) induced significant increases in calf circumference that took an average of 20.31 ± 10.87 min of walking to return to baseline.Abbreviations: FMD: flow-mediated dilation, GSC: gastrocnemius; TA: tibialis anterior; EMG: electromyography; VAS: visual analog scale; MVC: maximum voluntary contractions.

Effect of a 'spine offloading' chair design on seated height and posture.

A prototype chair with anterior chest and arm supports has been designed to reduce compressive spine loads. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of this offloading design on seated height compared to a control configuration of the same chair. 20 males sat on each configuration for 1 hour. Seated height, perceived pain, spine angles, seat pressure, and participant experience were measured. Spine height loss was significantly reduced in the offloading (-0.75 ± 3.79 mm) compared to the control configuration (-6.16 ± 4.27 mm, p < 0.001), and participants sat significantly more anterior on the seat pan in the offloading (20.56 ± 1.67 cm) compared to control configuration (18.03 ± 1.92 cm, p < 0.001). There were no differences in spine angles or perceived back and gluteal pain between configurations. This design appears to be a promising approach to protecting the back during sitting when engaging in forward leaning tasks where the offloading effect of a backrest may be minimised. Practitioner summary: A prototype chair with anterior chest and arm supports designed to offload the spine was shown to significantly reduce seated height loss during 1-hour of sitting compared to a control configuration. While participants perceived the offloading design to be more supportive, no differences in perceived pain or posture were found.

What is the best way to collect maximum forward lumbar spine flexion values for normalizing posture to range of motion?

Spine angles are an important measure in biomechanics research and are commonly normalized to a percentage of range of motion. However, standardized methods to collect the reference posture trials for this normalization do not exist. The purpose of this study was to determine posture (seated or standing) and number of trials that should be collected and how to calculate the angle that best represents the maximum range. Forty healthy adults (22 females, 18 males) completed 12 reference trials: 1 upright standing, 5 standing flexion, and 5 seated flexion trials. The maximum lumbar angle was found for each flexion trial. Additionally, different methods to calculate the maximum were applied by taking the maximum of the 5 standing, 5 seated, and all 10 flexion trials. An interaction was found between posture, order, and trial number. 42.5% and 57.5% of participants reached their maximum angle during seated and standing flexion respectively which may be due to back- vs hip-dominant movement strategies. 85% of participants achieved their maximum at some point during the first six flexion trials. The maximum angle of all 10 flexion trials was significantly greater than the angle of the first standing or seated trial only but not significantly greater than the maximum of all seated or standing flexion trials respectively. Secondarily, no differences in the maximum lumbar angle were found between sexes. This study suggests that 6 flexion trials, involving both standing and seated flexion, should be collected to best represent the maximum end range of spine flexion.

Transient perceived back pain induced by prolonged sitting in a backless office chair: are biomechanical factors involved?

It is not currently known if biomechanical factors contribute to low back pain (LBP) during prolonged sitting. Thus, this study recruited 90 participants (61 with no history of LBP, and 29 with) to sit for 1 hour where back electromyography, spine posture, and perceived pain ratings (PPR) were collected. Participants were classified as Pain Developers (PD) or Non-Pain Developers (NPD) based on their maximum PPR. PDs had significantly higher PPR (p = 0.000) and lower number of spine fidgets (p = 0.004) than NPDs. There was a significant interaction between clinical health history and pain group (p = 0.037) for PPR. Besides fidget frequency, there were no biomechanical differences between pain groups. Therefore, sitting-induced back pain does not appear to be due to posture or muscle activity; however, it may be related to micro-movement strategies. Future work should explore fidgeting further and whether healthy PDs are at risk for clinical LBP in the future. Practitioner summary: We have replicated the differential transient sitting-induced pain response observed in previous studies. Pain developers do not sit differently than non-pain developers, although they do appear to move less. More research is warranted to better understand these groups and the relationship between pain developers and future cases of back pain. Abbreviations: LBP: low back pain; PG: pain group; PD: pain developer; NPD: non-pain developer; +veHx: positive clinical history for low back pain; -veHx: negative clinical history for low back pain; RTS: right thoracic erector spinae; LTS: left thoracic erector spine; RLM: right lumbar multifidus; LLM: left lumbar multifidus; MVC: maximum voluntary contraction; Pelvic N: normalized pelvic angle; ANOVA: analysis of variance; SD: standard deviation.

The relationship between lumbopelvic flexibility and sitting posture in adult women.

Clinical observations have suggested that limited hamstring flexibility may be associated with sagittal spinal curvatures in spine flexed postures. Thus, limited hamstring flexibility may be related to large amounts of spine flexion in "slumped" sitting postures which could contribute to low back pain and injury. The aim of this study was to determine if hamstring and pelvic flexibility are associated with flexed sitting postures using a backless office chair. Forty-one healthy female adults aged 18-69  years were recruited. Subjects performed the Sit-and-Reach test to determine maximum flexibility values and lumbar and pelvic angles were measured with accelerometers. Participants then completed a standardized typing task for a 10-minute sitting trial at an ergonomically adjusted workstation. The results showed no association between hamstring flexibility and seated lumbar spine and pelvic angles (p = 0.999, η2 = 0.000; p = 0.901, η2 = 0.006). Greater pelvic flexibility was associated with a more upright lumbar sitting posture (p = 0.023; η2 = 0.132) but with no specific pelvic sitting posture (p = 0.660; η2 = 0.005). Different movement strategies during the Sit-and-Reach test were detected: all participants moved through their lumbar spine; but only those with 'excellent' flexibility also used their pelvis. Individuals in the 'excellent' flexibility group were significantly shorter than those with 'poor' and 'good' flexibility (p = 0.020; η2 = 0.190). In conclusion, hamstring flexibility does not influence sitting posture but pelvic flexibility does. Other factors such as acetabulofemoral joint limitations, consciousness of posture, or the seat itself may also influence sitting posture. Different movement strategies as well as height appear to contribute to the Sit-and-Reach test which should be researched further.