Trunk coordination in people with low back pain during goal-directed repetitive sagittal trunk movements

Alsubaie, A.M.; Jiménez-Grande, David; Nunzio, Alessandro Marco De

doi:10.1016/j.physio.2020.03.114

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A total of 53 studies were excluded in full-text screening as follows: WIST studies without feedback ( n = 14) [ 55 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 ]; feedback without an inertial sensor (s) [ 94 ]; sensors integrated into equipment ( n = 5), e.g., seat sensors and robotic devices rather than those worn by an individual [ 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 ]; standing balance and/or lower body sway ( n = 5) [ 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 ]; abstracts ( n = 7) [ 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 110 , 111 ]; stroke/other neurological rehabilitation studies ( n = 4) [ 112 , 113 , 114 , 115 ]; a non-work setting ( n = 3) [ 116 , 117 , 118 ]; no evaluation of WIST feedback effectiveness ( n = 6) [ 119 , 120 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 ]; research proposal ( n = 1) [ 125 ]; and validity and reliability s...…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence for the Effectiveness of Feedback from Wearable Inertial Sensors during Work-Related Activities: A Scoping Review

Lee

James

Edwards

et al. 2021

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Wearable inertial sensor technology (WIST) systems provide feedback, aiming to modify aberrant postures and movements. The literature on the effects of feedback from WIST during work or work-related activities has not been previously summarised. This review examines the effectiveness of feedback on upper body kinematics during work or work-related activities, along with the wearability and a quantification of the kinematics of the related device. Methods: The Cinahl, Cochrane, Embase, Medline, Scopus, Sportdiscus and Google Scholar databases were searched, including reports from January 2005 to July 2021. The included studies were summarised descriptively and the evidence was assessed. Results: Fourteen included studies demonstrated a ‘limited’ level of evidence supporting posture and/or movement behaviour improvements using WIST feedback, with no improvements in pain. One study assessed wearability and another two investigated comfort. Studies used tri-axial accelerometers or IMU integration (n = 5 studies). Visual and/or vibrotactile feedback was mostly used. Most studies had a risk of bias, lacked detail for methodological reproducibility and displayed inconsistent reporting of sensor technology, with validation provided only in one study. Thus, we have proposed a minimum ‘Technology and Design Checklist’ for reporting. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that WIST may improve posture, though not pain; however, the quality of the studies limits the strength of this conclusion. Wearability evaluations are needed for the translation of WIST outcomes. Minimum reporting standards for WIST should be followed to ensure methodological reproducibility.

show abstract