2019
DOI: 10.1080/09593985.2019.1639868
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparisons of hamstring flexibility between individuals with and without low back pain: systematic review with meta-analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
19
1
4

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
1
19
1
4
Order By: Relevance
“…19,20 Children are more susceptible to overuse injuries than adults due to the effect on their immature growth cartilages and as children become more heavily involved in cricket. 21 LBP is not associated with impaired hamstring flexibility, stiffness 22 or hamstring muscle length. 23 Massoud Arab et al, 24 further described that there is no significant difference in hamstring muscle length with and without sacroiliac joint dysfunction.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…19,20 Children are more susceptible to overuse injuries than adults due to the effect on their immature growth cartilages and as children become more heavily involved in cricket. 21 LBP is not associated with impaired hamstring flexibility, stiffness 22 or hamstring muscle length. 23 Massoud Arab et al, 24 further described that there is no significant difference in hamstring muscle length with and without sacroiliac joint dysfunction.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…LBP is not associated with impaired hamstring exibility, stiffness [25] or hamstring muscle length [26]. MassoudArab et al [27] further described that there is no signi cant difference in hamstring muscle length with and without sacroiliac joint dysfunction.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The studies’ methodological quality was assessed using the modified McMaster Critical Review Form for Quantitative Studies [ 15 ], where a total score ranges from 0 to 16. This critical appraisal tool was selected given that: (1) it has acceptable inter-examiner reliability as reported in several studies [ 15 , 16 , 17 ], (2) most of the 16 points are covered in the CONSORT statement and were considered comprehensive, (3) it can be used for not only RCTs but also cross-sectional studies, and (4) a threshold of poor quality has been used in previous studies [ 15 , 16 , 17 ]. The present study followed the modified guidelines for the critical appraisal tool established in a previous study to enhance inter-examiner agreement [ 15 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies with a score of ≤8 in the modified McMaster Critical Review Form for Quantitative Studies (poor quality) were excluded from data synthesis. A threshold of 8 was selected based on previous studies [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ] and was considered reasonable given that it is the middle point of the whole scale.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation