Brief-MP administered in the field reduced negative affect, craving, and cigarette use, suggesting it may be a useful treatment.

Each author contributed important intellectual content during manuscript drafting or revision and accepts accountability for the overall work by ensuring that questions pertaining to the accuracy or integrity of any portion of the work are appropriate investigated and resolved. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Objectives Lumbar flexion-relaxation (FR) is a well-known phenomenon that can reliably be seen in normal subjects but not in most chronic low back pain (CLBP) patients. The purpose of this study was to determine which surface electromyographic (SEMG) measures of FR best distinguish CLBP patients from pain-free control subjects. Standing SEMG and lumbar flexion range of motion (ROM) were also evaluated. Methods A cohort of 218 CLBP patients, who were admitted to a functional restoration program, received a standardized SEMG and ROM assessment during standing trunk flexion and re-extension. An asymptomatic control group of 30 non-patients received an identical assessment. Both groups were compared on eight separate SEMG and three flexion ROM measures. Results A receiver-operating curve (ROC) analysis was used to determine how well each measure distinguished between the CLBP patients and the pain-free control subjects. All SEMG measures of FR performed acceptably. Between 79% and 82% of patients, and 83% and 100% of controls were correctly classified. Standing SEMG performed less well. Gross flexion ROM was the best single classification measure tested, correctly classifying 88% of patients and 83% of controls. A series of discriminant analyses found that certain combinations of SEMG and ROM performed slightly better than gross ROM alone for correctly classifying the two subject groups. Discussion Because all SEMG measures of FR performed acceptably, the determination of which SEMG measure of FR is “best” is largely dependent on one’s specific purpose Additionally, ROM measures were found to be important components of the FR assessment.