
==== Front
Int J Sports Phys Ther
Int J Sports Phys Ther
2159
International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy
2159-2896
NASMI Website: International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy

38313671
91640
10.26603/001c.91640
Original Research
Hip and Trunk Variables in University Students with and without Recurrent Low Back Pain
Lehecka BJ 1
Burleson Jordin
Diederich Paige
Salem Morgan
Schoonover Rachel
Tejano Jason
1 Physical Therapy Wichita State University https://ror.org/00c4e7y75
Corresponding Author: B.J. Lehecka, DPT, PhD 1845 Fairmount St. Wichita, KS 67260 Phone: 316-978-6156; E-mail: bryan.lehecka@wichita.edu
1 2 2024
2024
19 2 199205
17 6 2023
5 12 2023
© The Author(s)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (4.0) which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Background

Low back pain (LBP) is a leading cause of disability. Recurrent low back pain (rLBP) is defined as two or more episodes of LBP in a 12-month period, each lasting more than 24 hours and separated by at least one pain-free month. Many studies have shown that hip and trunk variables have an influence on LBP. However, most of these are studies of participants with acute or chronic LBP rather than rLBP.

Purpose

To examine the difference between hip and trunk variables of university students with and without rLBP.

Study Design

Cross-Sectional

Methods

Participants with and without rLBP between 18 and 35 years of age not currently undergoing clinical orthopedic care were recruited for this cross-sectional study. Bilateral hip range of motion (ROM) and trunk ROM were measured with a goniometer or measuring tape (hip motions in all planes along with trunk flexion, extension, and lateral flexion). Strength of the hip extensors, abductors, and external rotators was measured using a handheld dynamometer, and a single-leg bridge endurance test was performed to assess differences and correlations between outcomes.

Results

Twenty-six subjects aged 18 to 35 years with rLBP (n=10) and without rLBP (n=16) participated. Statistically significant differences between the two groups were found for right and left hip flexion (p = 0.029 and 0.039, respectively), right hip adduction (p = 0.043), and right hip extension (p = 0.021). No significant differences were found between groups for strength, endurance, or other ROM measures.

Conclusion

The findings of this study show statistically significant although clinically non-meaningful differences in hip flexion, extension, and adduction ROM in the rLBP group compared to the control group. This lack of clinically meaningful difference may be relevant to testing procedures and treatment of patients or athletes with rLBP. This study also suggests that hip strength and endurance may not play a major role in the development or treatment of rLBP. Level of Evidence: 3

low back pain
hip
trunk
range of motion
strength
==== Body
pmcINTRODUCTION

Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability globally.1 The annual prevalence of LBP is estimated to be around 38%.2 Its prevalence in university students appears higher at 43%.3 Similarly problematic is the recurrence of LBP in the university population.4 Recurrent LBP (rLBP) is most consistently defined as two or more episodes of LBP in a 12-month period, each lasting more than 24 hours and separated by at least one pain-free month.5 Between 25% and 69% of individuals in the general population who experience an acute bout of LBP are estimated to experience rLBP.6–8 However, up to 77% of university students report recurrence.9

Hip and trunk variables appear to have an influence on LBP. Many authors have demonstrated a link between reduced lumbar range of motion (ROM) and LBP.10 Authors have also suggested that decreased hip ROM, hip extensor strength, and hip endurance may be related to LBP.11 However, participants in most of the prior studies report acute or chronic LBP rather than rLBP. Individuals with acute or chronic LBP are more likely to report pain at the time of testing than those with rLBP; therefore, they may demonstrate different hip or trunk kinematics and strength secondary to pain.

Although previous episodes of LBP and select psychosocial variables appear to increase the risk of LBP, evidence shows it is difficult to predict who will have a recurrence of LBP.8,12,13 Occupational trunk flexion and rotation may contribute to a poor prognosis for individuals with rLBP.13 Limited sagittal and frontal plane trunk ROM may also be risk factors for rLBP.14 Moreover, hip ROM and strength as well as trunk endurance seem related to rLBP, albeit in a limited number of studies.14,15 These variables have been studied in adolescents and adults, but not in the university population.

Some data suggest that motor control changes are related to rLBP. While prospective studies of motor control variables and rLBP are limited, one literature review concluded motor control exercises were superior to general exercise, manual therapy, or minimal intervention regarding pain and disability in the rehabilitation of those with rLBP.16 However, multiple authors have demonstrated minimal or no difference between motor control exercises and a daily walking program in the treatment of rLBP, suggesting motor control exercises beyond a walking program may be unnecessary.17,18

Some data exist regarding collegiate athletes and rLBP, although the incidence appears lower than the non-athletic university population around 2%.19 One study of 679 varsity collegiate athletes concluded that athletes who reported previous low back injury were at three times greater risk to experience another bout of LBP. Moreover, those with pain at the time of survey were six times more likely to sustain LBP than athletes without a history of LBP.20 The authors suggested that rLBP may be due to congenital factors or a result of insufficient recovery time after the first LBP episode.

Given the prevalence of rLBP and the need for further study of its risk factors, the purpose of this study was to examine the difference between hip and trunk variables of university students with and without rLBP. Participants with rLBP were expected to demonstrate less hip and trunk ROM, hip strength, and hip endurance than those without rLBP.

METHODS

Participants with and without rLBP were recruited as a sample of convenience for this cross-sectional design study from a university population following Institutional Review Board approval (#4896). Participants between 18 and 35 years of age completed a written informed consent form and health questionnaire prior to testing and were excluded if they reported any of the following: severe spinal deformities; chronic disease affecting the musculoskeletal system; orthopedic surgery within the last six months; current pregnancy; or current spine, hip, or knee pain. Participants were assigned to the rLBP group if they reported two or more episodes of LBP in the previous year, each lasting more than 24 hours and separated by at least one pain-free month. Otherwise, the participants were assigned to the control group.

Participants completed a two-minute stationary bicycle warm-up between 30 and 60 rotations per minute.21 During the warm-up, participants were educated on the testing procedures. After the warm-up, bilateral hip ROM and trunk ROM were measured with a standard goniometer on a standard plinth. Three trials of hip flexion (Figure 1), extension (Figure 2), abduction, adduction, external rotation, and internal rotation as well as trunk flexion, extension, and bilateral lateral flexion ROM were taken via goniometer and tape measure, respectively, and recorded in centimeters by a researcher blind to group assignment. These measurements have previously been found reliable.22

190898 Figure 1. Hip Flexion Range of Motion Measurement

190899 Figure 2. Hip Extension Range of Motion Measurement

Next, strength of the hip extensors, abductors, and external rotators was measured using a handheld dynamometer (Lafayette Manual Muscle Tester, FEI, White Plains, NY). The peak force over three seconds was recorded. Participants completed three trials per leg, alternating legs, and allowing at least 30 seconds of rest between trials. Measurements were taken using a stabilization belt on a standard plinth by a researcher blind to group assignment. Hip extensor strength was measured with the participant in prone, the knee flexed to 90 degrees, and the stabilization strap and dynamometer positioned over the posterior distal femur. Hip abductor strength was measured with the participant in sidelying with the hip to be tested nearest the ceiling in 0 degrees of abduction using a pillow. The stabilization strap and dynamometer were placed over the lateral distal femur. Lastly, hip external rotator strength was measured in sitting with the hip in 90 degrees of flexion and neutral rotation. The stabilization belt and dynamometer were placed over the medial ankle. This method of strength testing has demonstrated high reliability in a previous study.23

The last measurement was a timed single-leg bridge, taken at least 90 seconds following strength measurements to allow adequate rest. This measure has demonstrated high reliability (ICC = 0.87-0.99) with a low standard error of measurement (SEM = 8.9 seconds).24 Participants were positioned in hooklying with the knee to be measured flexed to 135 degrees and asked to hold a raised unilateral bridge until fatigue. One measurement on each leg recorded in seconds was taken by a researcher blind to group assignment with at least 90 seconds of rest between sides.

Data were analyzed using SPSS v28.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicaco, IL) via independent t-tests to determine significant group differences using an alpha level of 0.05. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all measures and demographic variables. The researcher performing data analysis was blind to group assignment.

RESULTS

Twenty-six participants’ data were analyzed (mean age = 23 ± 2 years; mean height = 1.77 ± 0.10 meters; mean weight = 80.46 ± 14.07 kilograms). Descriptive statistics and results of independent t-tests for ROM measures are provided in Table 1. Those for strength and endurance measures are provided in Table 2. Statistically significant differences between groups were found for right hip flexion ROM (p = 0.029; 95% CI -11.88 to 6.66), left hip flexion ROM (p = 0.039; 95% CI -12.29 to 5.41), right hip adduction ROM (p = 0.043; 95% CI -4.32 to 0.15), and right hip extension (p = 0.021; 95% CI -1.31 to 7.50). No statistically significant difference was found between groups for the strength, endurance, or other ROM measures.

190900 Table 1. Descriptive statistics and results of independent t-tests for ROM measures (hip ROM recorded in degrees; lumbar ROM recorded in centimeters)

	Mean ± SD for rLBP group (n = 10)	Mean ± SD for control group (n = 16)	p-value [95% CI]	
Right hip flexion ROM	104.95 ± 14.73	107.56 ± 8.28	0.029* [-11.88, 6.66]	
Left hip flexion ROM	103.52 ± 13.67	106.96 ± 8.29	0.039* [-12.29, 5.41]	
Right hip extension ROM	16.22 ± 3.70	13.12 ± 6.06	0.021* [-1.31, 7.50]	
Left hip extension ROM	16.53 ± 4.01	11.27 ± 4.43	0.421 [1.69, 8.82]	
Right hip adduction ROM	10.95 ± 2.05	13.04 ± 3.01	0.043* [-4.32, 0.15]	
Left hip adduction ROM	10.88 ± 2.71	12.06 ± 2.76	0.582 [-3.47, 1.09]	
Right hip abduction ROM	25.19 ± 6.51	21.96 ± 6.19	0.792 [-2.02, 8.48]	
Left hip abduction ROM	25.29 ± 6.63	20.67 ± 5.67	0.251 [-0.41, 9.65]	
Right hip internal rotation ROM	37.96 ± 4.31	31.74 ± 5.22	0.212 [2.13, 10.28]	
Left hip internal rotation ROM	37.06 ± 4.56	33.09 ± 7.06	0.102 [-1.22, 9.16]	
Right hip external rotation ROM	35.10 ± 4.95	34.13 ± 5.35	0.951 [-3.36, 5.31]	
Left hip external rotation ROM	36.56 ± 3.49	34.00 ± 5.93	0.115 [-1.73, 6.85]	
Lumbar flexion ROM	5.40 ± 1.07	5.70 ± 1.25	0.631 [-1.28, 0.69]	
Lumbar extension ROM	3.52 ± 1.31	3.13 ± 1.49	0.616 [-0.79, 1.58]	
Right lateral lumbar flexion ROM	25.25 ± 2.70	22.18 ± 3.06	0.519 [0.64, 5.51]	
Left lateral lumbar flexion ROM	24.99 ± 2.74	23.23 ± 3.33	0.166 [-0.84, 4.35]	
CI = confidence interval; cm = centimeters; rLBP = recurrent low back pain; ROM = range of motion; SD = standard deviation; * = statistically significant difference at the p < 0.05 level

190901 Table 2. Descriptive statistics and results of independent t-tests for strength (recorded in pounds) and endurance (recorded in seconds) measures

	Mean ± SD for rLBP group (n = 10)	Mean ± SD for control group (n = 16)	p-value for group differences [95% CI]	
Right hip extensors	62.18 ± 18.93	62.82 ± 20.00	0.631 [-16.96, 15.67]	
Left hip extensors	61.42 ± 18.15	60.53 ± 21.08	0.614 [-15.78, 17.55]	
Right hip abductors	37.81 ± 8.26	39.93 ± 6.61	0.143 [-8.17, 3.93]	
Left hip abductors	35.99 ± 7.01	38.45 ± 7.32	0.896 [-8.45, 3.54]	
Right hip external rotators	29.69 ± 7.77	31.20 ± 8.00	0.646 [-8.10, 5.07]	
Left hip external rotators	27.63 ± 9.14	30.21 ± 9.02	0.677 [-10.12, 4.97]	
Right single-leg bridge endurance	56.70 ± 31.79	54.00 ± 35.22	0.995 [-25.56, 30.96]	
Left single-leg bridge endurance (seconds)	49.50 ± 30.52	58.56 ± 39.81	0.484 [-39.51, 21.39]	
CI = confidence interval; lbs = pounds; s = seconds; rLBP = recurrent low back pain; SD = standard deviation

Participants with rLBP demonstrated less right and left hip flexion than participants without rLBP (2.61 and 3.44 degrees, respectively). Participants with rLBP also demonstrated 2.09 degrees less right hip adduction than those without rLBP. However, participants with rLBP demonstrated 3.1 degrees more right hip extension than those without rLBP. Each of those ROM differences were significantly different. Participants with rLBP demonstrated 0.64-2.58 pounds less hip strength than those without rLBP for all measures except left hip extension, however none of these were statistically significantly different. Single-leg bridge endurance was 2.7 seconds more on the right and 9.06 seconds less on the left among participants with rLBP than those without rLBP (also not significantly different).

DISCUSSION

The primary purpose of this study was to compare hip and trunk variables in university students with and without rLBP. The main finding was that participants reporting rLBP demonstrated significantly less hip flexion bilaterally, less right hip adduction, and more right hip extension than those without rLBP. However, these differences were between one and three degrees with overlapping confidence intervals, so the differences should be interpreted with caution. Even if the confidence intervals were smaller, one to three degrees among a sample this size is arguably not clinically significant.

Moreover, strength and endurance differences were not seen between groups. This finding may help explain why studies such as one by Cairns et al. demonstrated no additional benefit at a 12-month follow-up of adding specific spinal stabilization exercises to conventional physical therapy for patients with rLBP.25 In a similar study, a general exercise program reduced disability in the short term to a greater extent than a stabilization-enhanced exercise approach in patients with rLBP.26 However, several authors have demonstrated a benefit to trunk or hip strengthening and endurance for addressing rLBP. For example, trunk muscle endurance14 and hip muscle strengthening15,27 have both appeared to decrease the incidence or intensity of rLBP. Unilateral bridging, also called a Gluteal Endurance Measure (GEM), was the choice measure of endurance because of its high reliability and specificity to gluteal fatigue.24 Future study may benefit from using an endurance measure that targets the erector spinae such as the Sorenson test to evaluate muscle endurance in those with rLBP.

In the current study, significantly less hip flexion ROM on either limb, less right hip adduction, and more right hip extension were seen in the participants with rLBP. Several prior authors have shown similar associations between hip motion and rLBP. For example, Jones et al. demonstrated that hip motion, including hip flexion, was a risk factor for rLBP or associated with its improvement.14,28 Limited sagittal plane hip motion and hip motion asymmetry also appears correlated with chronic LBP by several authors.27,29

Lumbar motion as measured in the current study was not statistically associated with rLBP, although lumbar ROM has been linked to rLBP in prior studies. In one such study, symptomatic participants had significantly reduced lateral flexion of the spine and total lumbar sagittal plane mobility measured using a tape measure and the modified Schöber procedure when compared to asymptomatic participants.14 In another study, lumbar sagittal mobility increased with improvements in rLBP.28 Limited lumbar lordosis30 and total lumbar sagittal ROM31 are associated with LBP in other studies also; however, these were studies of general LBP rather than rLBP and used different ROM measurement methods, such as motion capture systems, spinal pantographs, and inclinometers.

The link between hip ROM, specifically hip flexion ROM, and LBP is intuitive and supported by multiple studies.11 However, this study did not find ROM differences between those with and without rLBP that exceed typical measurement error. More studies of rLBP and its relationship to hip variables are needed to draw firm conclusions.

Limitations of this study include a small sample size and a specific population of university students. Also, previous treatment received by those with rLBP and the intensity and duration of their LBP was unknown. Lastly, participants self-reported their rLBP, introducing potential reporting bias.

CONCLUSION

Recurrent low back pain is a significant problem among the general and university populations. This study of university students demonstrated a statistically significant difference in bilateral hip flexion, right hip adduction, and right hip extension ROM between those with and without rLBP. These differences, although statistically significant, are clinically non-meaningful differences of 1-3 degrees. Strength and endurance measures were not significantly different in those with or without rLBP, which may indicate that they are not related to the presentation of rLBP.

Conflict of Interest

There are no potential conflicts of interests, including financial arrangements, organizational affiliations, or other relationships that may constitute a conflict of interest regarding the submitted work.
==== Refs
Global low back pain prevalence and years lived with disability from 1990 to 2017: estimates from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 Annals of Translational Medicine Wu Aimin March Lyn Zheng Xuanqi Huang Jinfeng Wang Xiangyang Zhao Jie Blyth Fiona M. Smith Emma Buchbinder Rachelle Hoy Damian 3 2020
8 6 299 299 2305-5839 10.21037/atm.2020.02.175 10.21037/atm.2020.02.175 32355743
Epidemiology of low back pain in adults Neuromodulation: Technology at the Neural Interface Manchikanti Laxmaiah Singh Vijay Falco Frank J.E. Benyamin Ramsin M. Hirsch Joshua A. 10 2014
17 Suppl 2 3 10 1094-7159 10.1111/ner.12018 10.1111/ner.12018
Psychosocial factors and low back pain among college students Journal of American College Health Kennedy Catherine Kassab Osama Gilkey David Linnel Sheri Morris Debra 1 9 2008
57 2 191 196 0744-8481 10.3200/jach.57.2.191-196 10.3200/jach.57.2.191-196
The burden of low back pain among undergraduate physiotherapy students at the University of Zimbabwe: a cross-sectional study BMC Research Notes Chiwaridzo M. Chamarime K. J. Dambi J. M. 4 10 2018
11 1 697 1756-0500 10.1186/s13104-018-3796-5 10.1186/s13104-018-3796-5 30286786
How do we define the condition ‘recurrent low back pain’? A systematic review European Spine Journal Stanton Tasha R. Latimer Jane Maher Chris G. Hancock Mark J. 2010
19 4 533 539 0940-6719 10.1007/s00586-009-1214-3 10.1007/s00586-009-1214-3 19921522
Recurrence of low back pain is common: a prospective inception cohort study Journal of Physiotherapy da Silva Tatiane Mills Kathryn Brown Benjamin T Pocovi Natasha de Campos Tarcisio Maher Christopher Hancock Mark J 7 2019
65 3 159 165 1836-9553 10.1016/j.jphys.2019.04.010 10.1016/j.jphys.2019.04.010 31208917
Risk of Recurrence of Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy da Silva Tatiane Mills Kathryn Brown Benjamin T. Herbert Robert D. Maher Christopher G. Hancock Mark J. 5 2017
47 5 305 313 0190-6011 10.2519/jospt.2017.7415 10.2519/jospt.2017.7415 28355981
After an episode of acute low back pain, recurrence is unpredictable and not as common as previously thought Spine Stanton Tasha R. Henschke Nicholas Maher Chris G. Refshauge Kathryn M. Latimer Jane McAuley James H. 12 2008
33 26 2923 2928 0362-2436 10.1097/brs.0b013e31818a3167 10.1097/brs.0b013e31818a3167
Lower back pain in physically demanding college academic programs: a questionnaire based study BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Brennan Graham Shafat Amir Mac Donncha Ciarán Vekins Carmel 13 7 2007
8 1 67 1471-2474 10.1186/1471-2474-8-67 10.1186/1471-2474-8-67 17631036
Comparing lumbo-pelvic kinematics in people with and without back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Laird Robert A Gilbert Jayce Kent Peter Keating Jennifer L 10 7 2014
15 1 1471-2474 10.1186/1471-2474-15-229 10.1186/1471-2474-15-229 25012528
The hips influence on low back pain: a distal link to a proximal problem J Sport Rehabil Reiman Michael P. Weisbach P. Cody Glynn Paul E. 2 2009
18 1 24 32 1056-6716 10.1123/jsr.18.1.24 10.1123/jsr.18.1.24
Can recurrence after an acute episode of low back pain be predicted? Phys Ther Machado Gustavo C. Maher Chris G. Ferreira Paulo H. Latimer Jane Koes Bart W. Steffens Daniel Ferreira Manuela L. 22 6 2017
97 9 889 895 0031-9023 10.1093/ptj/pzx067 10.1093/ptj/pzx067
Prognostic factors related to recurrent low-back pain and sickness absence Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health van den Heuvel Swenne G Ariëns Geertje AM Boshuizen Hendriek C Hoogendoorn Wilhelmina E Bongers Paulien M 12 2004
30 6 459 467 0355-3140 10.5271/sjweh.835 10.5271/sjweh.835
Biological risk indicators for recurrent non-specific low back pain in adolescents British Journal of Sports Medicine Jones M A Stratton G Reilly T Unnithan V B 23 2 2005
39 3 137 140 0306-3674 10.1136/bjsm.2003.009951 10.1136/bjsm.2003.009951 15728690
Effectiveness of targeted home-based hip exercises in individuals with non-specific chronic or recurrent low back pain with reduced hip mobility: A randomised trial Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Winter Sara 2 12 2015
28 4 811 825 1053-8127 10.3233/bmr-150589 10.3233/bmr-150589
Motor control exercises reduces pain and disability in chronic and recurrent low back pain: a meta-analysis Spine Byström Martin Gustaf Rasmussen-Barr Eva Grooten Wilhelmus Johannes Andreas 3 2013
38 6 E350 E358 0362-2436 10.1097/brs.0b013e31828435fb 10.1097/brs.0b013e31828435fb 23492976
Graded exercise for recurrent low-back pain: a randomized, controlled trial with 6-, 12-, and 36-month follow-ups Spine Rasmussen-Barr Eva Äng Bjorn Arvidsson Inga Nilsson-Wikmar Lena 2 2009
34 3 221 228 0362-2436 10.1097/brs.0b013e318191e7cb 10.1097/brs.0b013e318191e7cb
Do lumbar stabilising exercises reduce pain and disability in patients with recurrent low back pain? Australian Journal of Physiotherapy Smeets Rob J.E.M. 2009
55 2 138 0004-9514 10.1016/s0004-9514(09)70046-7 10.1016/s0004-9514(09)70046-7 19534014
Prevalence of pre-existing recurrent low back pain in college athletes W V Med J Lively M.W. 2002
98 5 202 204 12440167
A history of low back injury is a risk factor for recurrent back injuries in varsity athletes The American Journal of Sports Medicine Greene Hunter S. Cholewicki Jacek Galloway Marc T. Nguyen Carolyn V. Radebold Andrea 11 2001
29 6 795 800 0363-5465 10.1177/03635465010290062001 10.1177/03635465010290062001
Influence of warm-up duration and recovery interval prior to exercise on anaerobic performance Biology of Sport Frikha Mohamed Chaâri Nesrine Gharbi Adnene Souissi Nizar 6 8 2016
33 4 361 366 0860-021X 10.5604/20831862.1221830 10.5604/20831862.1221830 28090140
Validity and test-retest reliability of manual goniometers for measuring passive hip range of motion in femoroacetabular impingement patients. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Nussbaumer Silvio Leunig Michael Glatthorn Julia F Stauffacher Simone Gerber Hans Maffiuletti Nicola A 31 8 2010
11 1 1471-2474 10.1186/1471-2474-11-194 10.1186/1471-2474-11-194 20807405
Clinical assessment of hip strength using a hand-held dynamometer is reliable Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports Thorborg K. Petersen J. Magnusson S. P. Hölmich P. 18 5 2010
20 3 493 501 0905-7188 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.00958.x 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.00958.x
The reliability and validity of gluteal endurance measures (GEMs) Int J Sports Phys Ther Lehecka B J Smith Barbara S Rundell Todd Cappaert Thomas A Hakansson Nils A 2 12 2021
16 6 1442 1453 2159-2896 10.26603/001c.29592 10.26603/001c.29592 34909251
Randomized controlled trial of specific spinal stabilization exercises and conventional physiotherapy for recurrent low back pain Spine Cairns Mindy C. Foster Nadine E. Wright Chris 9 2006
31 19 E670 E681 0362-2436 10.1097/01.brs.0000232787.71938.5d 10.1097/01.brs.0000232787.71938.5d 16946640
Trunk muscle stabilization training plus general exercise versus general exercise only: randomized controlled trial of patients with recurrent low back pain Phys Ther Koumantakis George A Watson Paul J Oldham Jacqueline A 1 3 2005
85 3 209 225 0031-9023 10.1093/ptj/85.3.209 10.1093/ptj/85.3.209
Correlations of hip mobility with degree of back pain and lumbar spinal mobility in chronic low-back pain patients Spine Mellin GUY 6 1988
13 6 668 670 0362-2436 10.1097/00007632-198813060-00012 10.1097/00007632-198813060-00012 2972070
The efficacy of exercise as an intervention to treat recurrent nonspecific low back pain in adolescents Pediatr Exerc Sci Jones Michelle Stratton Gareth Reilly Tom Unnithan Vishwanath 8 2007
19 3 349 359 0899-8493 10.1123/pes.19.3.349 10.1123/pes.19.3.349 18019593
Correlations between hip extension range of motion, hip extension asymmetry, and compensatory lumbar movement in patient with nonspecific chronic low back pain Medical Science Monitor Kim Won-Deuk Shin DooChul 24 9 2020
26 1643-3750 10.12659/msm.925080 10.12659/msm.925080 32968039
Restriction in lateral bending range of motion, lumbar lordosis, and hamstring flexibility predicts the development of low back pain: a systematic review of prospective cohort studies BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Sadler Sean G Spink Martin J Ho Alan De Jonge Xanne Janse Chuter Vivienne H 5 5 2017
18 1 179 1471-2474 10.1186/s12891-017-1534-0 10.1186/s12891-017-1534-0 28476110
Differences in lumbar spine and lower extremity kinematics during a step down functional task in people with and people without low back pain Clinical Biomechanics Hernandez Alejandra Gross Karlie Gombatto Sara 8 2017
47 46 52 0268-0033 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2017.05.012 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2017.05.012 28600994
