Measuring Lumbar Reposition Accuracy in XXXX With Unspecific Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

@entity1 @entity1643 @entity2246
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if @entity1 with @entity1643 ( @entity1643 ) show a greater lumbar reposition error (RE) than healthy controls. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Studies on lumbar RE in @entity1 with @entity1643 present conflicting results. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature were performed to evaluate differences in RE between @entity1 with @entity1643 and healthy controls. Data on absolute error, constant error (CE), and variable error were extracted and effect sizes (ESs) were calculated. For the CE flexion pattern and active extension pattern, subgroups of @entity1 with @entity1643 were analyzed. Results of homogeneous studies were pooled. Measurement protocols and study outcomes were compared. The quality of reporting and the authors' appraisal of risk of bias were investigated. RESULTS: The original search revealed 178 records of which 13 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The majority of studies showed that @entity1 with @entity1643 produced a significantly larger absolute error (ES, 0.81; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.13-1.49) and variable error (ES, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.05-1.09) compared with controls. CE is direction specific in flexion and active extension pattern subgroups of @entity1 with @entity1643 (ES, 0.39; 95% CI, -1.09 to 0.3) and ES, 0.18; 95% CI, -0.3 to 0.65, respectively). The quality of reporting and the authors' appraisal of risk of bias varied considerably. The applied test procedures and instrumentation varied between the studies, which hampered the comparability of studies. CONCLUSION: Although @entity1 with @entity1643 seemed to produce a larger lumbar RE compared with healthy controls, study limitations render firm conclusions unsafe. Future studies should pay closer attention to power, precision, and reliability of the measurement approach, definition of outcome measures, and @entity1 selection. We recommend a large, well-powered, prospective randomized control study that uses a standardized measurement approach and definitions for @entity2246 , and variable error to address the hypothesis that proprioception may be impaired with CLBP. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.
