Sensor-based postural feedback is more effective than conventional feedback to improve lumbopelvic movement control in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomised controlled trial

Improving movement control can be an important treatment goal for patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Although external feedback is essential when learning new movement skills, many aspects of feedback provision in patients with CLBP remain currently unexplored. New rehabilitation technologi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation 2018-09, Vol.15 (1), p.85-85, Article 85
Main Authors: Matheve, Thomas, Brumagne, Simon, Demoulin, Christophe, Timmermans, Annick
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Analysis
Automobile industry
Back pain
Control systems
Feedback
Hip
Human health sciences
Kinematics
Learning
Low back pain
Motion sensors
Motor learning
Motor skill learning
Motors
Movement (Physiology)
Movement control
Orthopedics, rehabilitation & sports medicine
Orthopédie, rééducation & médecine sportive
Pain
Patients
Posture
Randomization
Rehabilitation
Sciences de la santé humaine
Sensors
Skills
Spine
Spine (lumbar)
Subgroups
Systematic review
Technology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c652t-769dc3d7c3d488caeff4e916b902c40dd45e26c764920012ed302b6eb9ff34e3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c652t-769dc3d7c3d488caeff4e916b902c40dd45e26c764920012ed302b6eb9ff34e3
container_end_page 85
container_issue 1
container_start_page 85
container_title Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation
container_volume 15
creator Matheve, Thomas
Brumagne, Simon
Demoulin, Christophe
Timmermans, Annick
description Improving movement control can be an important treatment goal for patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Although external feedback is essential when learning new movement skills, many aspects of feedback provision in patients with CLBP remain currently unexplored. New rehabilitation technologies, such as movement sensors, are able to provide reliable and accurate feedback. As such, they might be more effective than conventional feedback for improving movement control. The aims of this study were (1) to assess whether sensor-based feedback is more effective to improve lumbopelvic movement control compared to feedback from a mirror or no feedback in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP), and (2) to evaluate whether patients with CLBP are equally capable of improving lumbopelvic movement control compared to healthy persons. Fifty-four healthy participants and 54 patients with chronic non-specific LBP were recruited. Both participant groups were randomised into three subgroups. During a single exercise session, subgroups practised a lumbopelvic movement control task while receiving a different type of feedback, i.e. feedback from movement sensors, from a mirror or no feedback (=control group). Kinematic measurements of the lumbar spine and hip were obtained at baseline, during and immediately after the intervention to evaluate the improvements in movement control on the practised task (assessment of performance) and on a transfer task (assessment of motor learning). Sensor-based feedback was more effective than feedback from a mirror (p 
doi_str_mv 10.1186/s12984-018-0423-6
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_78946a4bebc9485f906fba4a18864c14</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A557667452</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_78946a4bebc9485f906fba4a18864c14</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A557667452</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c652t-769dc3d7c3d488caeff4e916b902c40dd45e26c764920012ed302b6eb9ff34e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptUstu1DAUjRCIlsIHsEGW2LBJ8SuOwwKpqnhUqsSC7i3HuZlxceJgJ1PxafwdNzND1SIUWbm6Puf4-vgUxWtGzxnT6n1mvNGypEyXVHJRqifFKaulKCml4umD-qR4kfMtFpJW8nlxIiivhKb1afH7O4w5prK1GToyxTwvyQbSA3StdT-Iz2SICQj0PbjZ74DMWzsSF8cdjLOP40PwHIkfphQRFZahjROEnXcosIMB0StrTjEQP5LJzh5bmdz5eUvcNsURkSHekb3SZP34gViS7NjFwa-zHckByzl5G14Wz3obMrw6_s-Km8-fbi6_ltffvlxdXlyXTlV8LmvVdE50NS6ptbN4EQkNU21DuZO062QFXLlayYZTyjh0aE6roG36XkgQZ8XVQbaL9tZMyQ82_TLRerNvxLQxNs3eBTC1bqSysoXWNVJXfUNV31ppmdZKOiZR6-NBa1raATqHBqDZj0Qf74x-azZxZxSrlFY1CoiDQPCwATy89WbH98R9vQScxpkWDOdKGy4EExpZ747HpvhzgTwbdNRBCHaEuGTDGeMKAyXWCd_-A72NS8JHXlGca6oZBu0etbF4bT_2Ead1q6i5qKpaqVpWK-r8Pyj8Ohg8vib0HvuPCOxAcCnmnKC_d4ZRswbeHAJvMPBmDbxRyHnz0NJ7xt-Eiz8rzv67</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2122808142</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Sensor-based postural feedback is more effective than conventional feedback to improve lumbopelvic movement control in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomised controlled trial</title><source>Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Matheve, Thomas ; Brumagne, Simon ; Demoulin, Christophe ; Timmermans, Annick</creator><creatorcontrib>Matheve, Thomas ; Brumagne, Simon ; Demoulin, Christophe ; Timmermans, Annick</creatorcontrib><description>Improving movement control can be an important treatment goal for patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Although external feedback is essential when learning new movement skills, many aspects of feedback provision in patients with CLBP remain currently unexplored. New rehabilitation technologies, such as movement sensors, are able to provide reliable and accurate feedback. As such, they might be more effective than conventional feedback for improving movement control. The aims of this study were (1) to assess whether sensor-based feedback is more effective to improve lumbopelvic movement control compared to feedback from a mirror or no feedback in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP), and (2) to evaluate whether patients with CLBP are equally capable of improving lumbopelvic movement control compared to healthy persons. Fifty-four healthy participants and 54 patients with chronic non-specific LBP were recruited. Both participant groups were randomised into three subgroups. During a single exercise session, subgroups practised a lumbopelvic movement control task while receiving a different type of feedback, i.e. feedback from movement sensors, from a mirror or no feedback (=control group). Kinematic measurements of the lumbar spine and hip were obtained at baseline, during and immediately after the intervention to evaluate the improvements in movement control on the practised task (assessment of performance) and on a transfer task (assessment of motor learning). Sensor-based feedback was more effective than feedback from a mirror (p &lt; 0.0001) and no feedback (p &lt; 0.0001) to improve lumbopelvic movement control performance (Sensor vs. Mirror estimated difference 9.9° (95% CI 6.1°-13.7°), Sensor vs. Control estimated difference 10.6° (95% CI 6.8°-14.3°)) and motor learning (Sensor vs. Mirror estimated difference 7.2° (95% CI 3.8°-10.6°), Sensor vs. Control estimated difference 6.9° (95% CI 3.5°-10.2°)). Patients with CLBP were equally capable of improving lumbopelvic movement control compared to healthy persons. Sensor-based feedback is an effective means to improve lumbopelvic movement control in patients with CLBP. Future research should focus on the long-term retention effects of sensor-based feedback. clinicaltrials.gov NCT02773160 , (retrospectively registered on May 16th, 2016).</description><identifier>ISSN: 1743-0003</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1743-0003</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/s12984-018-0423-6</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30253807</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: BioMed Central Ltd</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Automobile industry ; Back pain ; Control systems ; Feedback ; Hip ; Human health sciences ; Kinematics ; Learning ; Low back pain ; Motion sensors ; Motor learning ; Motor skill learning ; Motors ; Movement (Physiology) ; Movement control ; Orthopedics, rehabilitation &amp; sports medicine ; Orthopédie, rééducation &amp; médecine sportive ; Pain ; Patients ; Posture ; Randomization ; Rehabilitation ; Sciences de la santé humaine ; Sensors ; Skills ; Spine ; Spine (lumbar) ; Subgroups ; Systematic review ; Technology</subject><ispartof>Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2018-09, Vol.15 (1), p.85-85, Article 85</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2018 BioMed Central Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2018. This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>The Author(s). 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c652t-769dc3d7c3d488caeff4e916b902c40dd45e26c764920012ed302b6eb9ff34e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c652t-769dc3d7c3d488caeff4e916b902c40dd45e26c764920012ed302b6eb9ff34e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-2523-9723</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6156867/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2122808142?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,25752,27923,27924,37011,37012,44589,53790,53792</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30253807$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Matheve, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brumagne, Simon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Demoulin, Christophe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Timmermans, Annick</creatorcontrib><title>Sensor-based postural feedback is more effective than conventional feedback to improve lumbopelvic movement control in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomised controlled trial</title><title>Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation</title><addtitle>J Neuroeng Rehabil</addtitle><description>Improving movement control can be an important treatment goal for patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Although external feedback is essential when learning new movement skills, many aspects of feedback provision in patients with CLBP remain currently unexplored. New rehabilitation technologies, such as movement sensors, are able to provide reliable and accurate feedback. As such, they might be more effective than conventional feedback for improving movement control. The aims of this study were (1) to assess whether sensor-based feedback is more effective to improve lumbopelvic movement control compared to feedback from a mirror or no feedback in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP), and (2) to evaluate whether patients with CLBP are equally capable of improving lumbopelvic movement control compared to healthy persons. Fifty-four healthy participants and 54 patients with chronic non-specific LBP were recruited. Both participant groups were randomised into three subgroups. During a single exercise session, subgroups practised a lumbopelvic movement control task while receiving a different type of feedback, i.e. feedback from movement sensors, from a mirror or no feedback (=control group). Kinematic measurements of the lumbar spine and hip were obtained at baseline, during and immediately after the intervention to evaluate the improvements in movement control on the practised task (assessment of performance) and on a transfer task (assessment of motor learning). Sensor-based feedback was more effective than feedback from a mirror (p &lt; 0.0001) and no feedback (p &lt; 0.0001) to improve lumbopelvic movement control performance (Sensor vs. Mirror estimated difference 9.9° (95% CI 6.1°-13.7°), Sensor vs. Control estimated difference 10.6° (95% CI 6.8°-14.3°)) and motor learning (Sensor vs. Mirror estimated difference 7.2° (95% CI 3.8°-10.6°), Sensor vs. Control estimated difference 6.9° (95% CI 3.5°-10.2°)). Patients with CLBP were equally capable of improving lumbopelvic movement control compared to healthy persons. Sensor-based feedback is an effective means to improve lumbopelvic movement control in patients with CLBP. Future research should focus on the long-term retention effects of sensor-based feedback. clinicaltrials.gov NCT02773160 , (retrospectively registered on May 16th, 2016).</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Automobile industry</subject><subject>Back pain</subject><subject>Control systems</subject><subject>Feedback</subject><subject>Hip</subject><subject>Human health sciences</subject><subject>Kinematics</subject><subject>Learning</subject><subject>Low back pain</subject><subject>Motion sensors</subject><subject>Motor learning</subject><subject>Motor skill learning</subject><subject>Motors</subject><subject>Movement (Physiology)</subject><subject>Movement control</subject><subject>Orthopedics, rehabilitation &amp; sports medicine</subject><subject>Orthopédie, rééducation &amp; médecine sportive</subject><subject>Pain</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Posture</subject><subject>Randomization</subject><subject>Rehabilitation</subject><subject>Sciences de la santé humaine</subject><subject>Sensors</subject><subject>Skills</subject><subject>Spine</subject><subject>Spine (lumbar)</subject><subject>Subgroups</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Technology</subject><issn>1743-0003</issn><issn>1743-0003</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNptUstu1DAUjRCIlsIHsEGW2LBJ8SuOwwKpqnhUqsSC7i3HuZlxceJgJ1PxafwdNzND1SIUWbm6Puf4-vgUxWtGzxnT6n1mvNGypEyXVHJRqifFKaulKCml4umD-qR4kfMtFpJW8nlxIiivhKb1afH7O4w5prK1GToyxTwvyQbSA3StdT-Iz2SICQj0PbjZ74DMWzsSF8cdjLOP40PwHIkfphQRFZahjROEnXcosIMB0StrTjEQP5LJzh5bmdz5eUvcNsURkSHekb3SZP34gViS7NjFwa-zHckByzl5G14Wz3obMrw6_s-Km8-fbi6_ltffvlxdXlyXTlV8LmvVdE50NS6ptbN4EQkNU21DuZO062QFXLlayYZTyjh0aE6roG36XkgQZ8XVQbaL9tZMyQ82_TLRerNvxLQxNs3eBTC1bqSysoXWNVJXfUNV31ppmdZKOiZR6-NBa1raATqHBqDZj0Qf74x-azZxZxSrlFY1CoiDQPCwATy89WbH98R9vQScxpkWDOdKGy4EExpZ747HpvhzgTwbdNRBCHaEuGTDGeMKAyXWCd_-A72NS8JHXlGca6oZBu0etbF4bT_2Ead1q6i5qKpaqVpWK-r8Pyj8Ohg8vib0HvuPCOxAcCnmnKC_d4ZRswbeHAJvMPBmDbxRyHnz0NJ7xt-Eiz8rzv67</recordid><startdate>20180926</startdate><enddate>20180926</enddate><creator>Matheve, Thomas</creator><creator>Brumagne, Simon</creator><creator>Demoulin, Christophe</creator><creator>Timmermans, Annick</creator><general>BioMed Central Ltd</general><general>BioMed Central</general><general>BMC</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7TS</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>Q33</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2523-9723</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20180926</creationdate><title>Sensor-based postural feedback is more effective than conventional feedback to improve lumbopelvic movement control in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomised controlled trial</title><author>Matheve, Thomas ; Brumagne, Simon ; Demoulin, Christophe ; Timmermans, Annick</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c652t-769dc3d7c3d488caeff4e916b902c40dd45e26c764920012ed302b6eb9ff34e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Automobile industry</topic><topic>Back pain</topic><topic>Control systems</topic><topic>Feedback</topic><topic>Hip</topic><topic>Human health sciences</topic><topic>Kinematics</topic><topic>Learning</topic><topic>Low back pain</topic><topic>Motion sensors</topic><topic>Motor learning</topic><topic>Motor skill learning</topic><topic>Motors</topic><topic>Movement (Physiology)</topic><topic>Movement control</topic><topic>Orthopedics, rehabilitation &amp; sports medicine</topic><topic>Orthopédie, rééducation &amp; médecine sportive</topic><topic>Pain</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Posture</topic><topic>Randomization</topic><topic>Rehabilitation</topic><topic>Sciences de la santé humaine</topic><topic>Sensors</topic><topic>Skills</topic><topic>Spine</topic><topic>Spine (lumbar)</topic><topic>Subgroups</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Technology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Matheve, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brumagne, Simon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Demoulin, Christophe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Timmermans, Annick</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Mechanical &amp; Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Université de Liège - Open Repository and Bibliography (ORBI)</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Matheve, Thomas</au><au>Brumagne, Simon</au><au>Demoulin, Christophe</au><au>Timmermans, Annick</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Sensor-based postural feedback is more effective than conventional feedback to improve lumbopelvic movement control in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomised controlled trial</atitle><jtitle>Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation</jtitle><addtitle>J Neuroeng Rehabil</addtitle><date>2018-09-26</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>85</spage><epage>85</epage><pages>85-85</pages><artnum>85</artnum><issn>1743-0003</issn><eissn>1743-0003</eissn><abstract>Improving movement control can be an important treatment goal for patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Although external feedback is essential when learning new movement skills, many aspects of feedback provision in patients with CLBP remain currently unexplored. New rehabilitation technologies, such as movement sensors, are able to provide reliable and accurate feedback. As such, they might be more effective than conventional feedback for improving movement control. The aims of this study were (1) to assess whether sensor-based feedback is more effective to improve lumbopelvic movement control compared to feedback from a mirror or no feedback in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP), and (2) to evaluate whether patients with CLBP are equally capable of improving lumbopelvic movement control compared to healthy persons. Fifty-four healthy participants and 54 patients with chronic non-specific LBP were recruited. Both participant groups were randomised into three subgroups. During a single exercise session, subgroups practised a lumbopelvic movement control task while receiving a different type of feedback, i.e. feedback from movement sensors, from a mirror or no feedback (=control group). Kinematic measurements of the lumbar spine and hip were obtained at baseline, during and immediately after the intervention to evaluate the improvements in movement control on the practised task (assessment of performance) and on a transfer task (assessment of motor learning). Sensor-based feedback was more effective than feedback from a mirror (p &lt; 0.0001) and no feedback (p &lt; 0.0001) to improve lumbopelvic movement control performance (Sensor vs. Mirror estimated difference 9.9° (95% CI 6.1°-13.7°), Sensor vs. Control estimated difference 10.6° (95% CI 6.8°-14.3°)) and motor learning (Sensor vs. Mirror estimated difference 7.2° (95% CI 3.8°-10.6°), Sensor vs. Control estimated difference 6.9° (95% CI 3.5°-10.2°)). Patients with CLBP were equally capable of improving lumbopelvic movement control compared to healthy persons. Sensor-based feedback is an effective means to improve lumbopelvic movement control in patients with CLBP. Future research should focus on the long-term retention effects of sensor-based feedback. clinicaltrials.gov NCT02773160 , (retrospectively registered on May 16th, 2016).</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>BioMed Central Ltd</pub><pmid>30253807</pmid><doi>10.1186/s12984-018-0423-6</doi><tpages>1</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2523-9723</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1743-0003
ispartof Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation, 2018-09, Vol.15 (1), p.85-85, Article 85
issn 1743-0003
1743-0003
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_78946a4bebc9485f906fba4a18864c14
source Publicly Available Content (ProQuest); PubMed Central
subjects Analysis
Automobile industry
Back pain
Control systems
Feedback
Hip
Human health sciences
Kinematics
Learning
Low back pain
Motion sensors
Motor learning
Motor skill learning
Motors
Movement (Physiology)
Movement control
Orthopedics, rehabilitation & sports medicine
Orthopédie, rééducation & médecine sportive
Pain
Patients
Posture
Randomization
Rehabilitation
Sciences de la santé humaine
Sensors
Skills
Spine
Spine (lumbar)
Subgroups
Systematic review
Technology
title Sensor-based postural feedback is more effective than conventional feedback to improve lumbopelvic movement control in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomised controlled trial
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T20%3A40%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Sensor-based%20postural%20feedback%20is%20more%20effective%20than%20conventional%20feedback%20to%20improve%20lumbopelvic%20movement%20control%20in%20patients%20with%20chronic%20low%20back%20pain:%20a%20randomised%20controlled%20trial&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20neuroengineering%20and%20rehabilitation&rft.au=Matheve,%20Thomas&rft.date=2018-09-26&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=85&rft.epage=85&rft.pages=85-85&rft.artnum=85&rft.issn=1743-0003&rft.eissn=1743-0003&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/s12984-018-0423-6&rft_dat=%3Cgale_doaj_%3EA557667452%3C/gale_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c652t-769dc3d7c3d488caeff4e916b902c40dd45e26c764920012ed302b6eb9ff34e3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2122808142&rft_id=info:pmid/30253807&rft_galeid=A557667452&rfr_iscdi=true