Spinal stiffness and mobility assessments vary between clinical and research settings, potentially hindering the understanding and treatment of low back pain. A total of 71 healthy participants were evaluated using 2 clinical assessments (posteroanterior spring and passive intervertebral motion) and 2 quantitative measures: lumped mechanical stiffness of the lumbar spine and local tissue stiffness (lumbar erector spinae and supraspinous ligament) measured via myotonometry. The authors hypothesized that clinical, mechanical, and local tissue measures would be correlated, that clinical tests would not alter mechanical stiffness, and that males would demonstrate greater lumbar stiffness than females. Clinical, lumped mechanical, and tissue stiffness were not correlated; however, gradings from the posteroanterior spring and passive intervertebral motion tests were positively correlated with each other. Clinical assessments had no effect on lumped mechanical stiffness. The males had greater lumped mechanical and lumbar erector spinae stiffness compared with the females. The lack of correlation between clinical, tissue, and lumped mechanical measures of spinal stiffness indicates that the use of the term “stiffness” by clinicians may require reevaluation; clinicians should be confident that they are not altering mechanical stiffness of the spine through segmental mobility assessments; and greater resting lumbar erector stiffness in males suggests that sex should be considered in the assessment and treatment of the low back.

No abstract

Background:The Modified Star Excursion Balance Test (MSEBT) and the Y-Balance Test-Lower Quarter (YBT-LQ) are utilized to assess dynamic postural stability. These assessments cannot be used interchangeably secondary to kinematic variations and performance differences. A Modified Y-Balance Test-Lower Quarter (MYBT-LQ) was developed to determine if a modification allows performance scores to be directly compared to the MSEBT.

Advancements in sport technology have made quantifying match-play external load (e.g., total distance, sprint distance, number of sprints) a popular option for athletics personnel. These variables of volume and intensity are useful for both objectively monitoring training in field-based sports and for designing training programs. As physical abilities differ across playing levels, match-play demands likely also differ. This narrative review compiles and compares the match-play external load data for women’s soccer at the professional and collegiate levels. Databases were searched through July 2022, yielding 13 primary articles that assessed the match-play demands of women’s soccer (3 professional, 8 Division I, 1 Division II, and 1 Division III). The results indicate that the average total distance covered were similar between the professional, Division I and Division III levels, but the variability was greater among Division III compared to professional and Division I players. Data for Division II are scarce, but the total distance covered appears to be less than for professional, Division I and Division III. There was also large variability for sprint distance and number of sprints across data at all playing levels. Considering the lack of studies of Division II and Division III players, more research is necessary to determine how playing level may affect external load profiles, as isolated studies likely only reflect data from isolated teams.

No abstract