Chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a significant public health issue, with prevalence intensifying due to an ageing global population, amassing approximately 619 million cases in 2020 and projected to escalate to 843 million by 2050. In this study, we analyzed the effects of multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation (MBR) on pain and disability. To address this question, we conducted a PRISMA-guided systematic review and random-effect network meta-analysis on studies collected from six electronic databases. The network comprised diverse MBR modalities (behavioral, educational, and work conditioning) alongside exercise therapy (ET), minimal intervention, and usual care, with pain and disability as outcomes. Ninety-three studies were included, encompassing a total of 8059 participants. The NMA substantiated that both ET and MBR modalities were effective in alleviating CLBP, with education-oriented MBR emerging as the most efficacious for pain mitigation (MD = 18.29; 95% CI = 13.70; 22.89) and behavior-focused MBR being the most efficacious for disability reduction (SMD = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.46; 1.30). Nevertheless, the discerned differences amongst the treatments were minimal and uncertain, highlighting that no modality was definitively superior to the others. Given the intricate nature of CLBP, embodying various facets, our findings advocate for a combined therapeutic approach to optimize treatment efficacy.

This tutorial explains when systematic review authors may consider performing a sensitivity analysis in a meta‐analysis. Such scenarios include removing studies at high risk of bias, exploring the effect of outliers and examining differences in study characteristics (e.g., participants’ age, study design). In addition, examples are provided, as well as advice on how to interpret and report the results. The tutorial also explains the differences between subgroup and sensitivity analyses, as well as describing the disadvantages of a sensitivity analysis. To support this tutorial, a link to an online module, which includes videos and quizzes, is also provided.

BACKGROUND: After a stroke, patients experience sensorimotor damage, balance disorders, loss of selective movement, hypotonia and/or hypertonia, and hypersensitivity, all of which affect gait. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to establish the effectiveness of Bobath therapy with additional specific soft tissue mobilizations versus standard Bobath intervention. METHODS: Subjects were randomly divided into two groups (S1 and S2) of 20 people each. Both groups underwent the same intervention (Bobath concept) over a 5-week period, while the second study group (S2) also received additional, specific soft tissue mobilization. The Berg Balance Scale (BBS), Timed Up and Go Test (TUGT), Active Range of Motion (AROM) of dorsiflexion and knee flexion and extension were used as clinical variables to assess the efficacy of therapy modalities. Data was analysed using a mixed model ANOVA. RESULTS: A significant interaction of group and time was found. The experimental (S2) group had a larger improvement of balance and AROM than the control (S1) group. There was no clear advantage of one group over the other for TUGT. CONCLUSION: The findings demonstrate that a combination of Bobath treatment and additional specific soft tissue mobilizations are more effective in increasing AROM and balance and mobility.

The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of the mass of a schoolbag on standing posture in first-year elementary school children. First-year elementary school students (n = 76) participated in this study. The data was digitized and analyzed using SkillSpector and Kinovea. Results have shown a change of Center of Gravity (COG) position in all three anatomical planes (p < 0.01), as well as a change in two out of three measured postural angles—craniovertebral (p < 0.01) and craniocervical (p < 0.01) angle. The most important aspect of changed posture, anterior shift of COG, was measured to be 2.4 cm and was in moderate negative correlation with student body mass (−0.4, p < 0.01) and height (−0.4, p < 0.01) when students were encumbered with a schoolbag weighing 16.11% of their body mass, on the average. Also, this study confirms that when encumbered, students’ head posture shifts to a more protracted position.

Functional Movement Screen is an established method of assessing dynamic posture of athletes. Validity and reliability of FMS as a screening tool is debated and one of the foremost criticism is directed at its subjectivity. To the authors’ knowledge, there is no previous research using Kinovea to precisely assess FMS scores. 10 young competitive gymnasts (4 female and 6 male) were included in this study. The participants were scored by an experienced FMS assessor on site as per standard FMS protocol. Afterwards, the same participants were scored again using Kinovea to achieve more objective measurements. Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for FMS scores versus FMS-Kinovea scores identified FMS test no. 1 (Deep Squat) as significantly different. The median score of Deep Squat assessed on site was 2 (mean value: 2.1), while that same test, scored with Kinovea, had the median score of 1 (mean value: 1.2). Paired Pitman-Morgan test for equality of variances was used to test the dispersion of scores. None were shown to be statistically significant, however, overall FMS score was near significance threshold implying that there is a difference although our power of study was too low probably due to low sample size. We detected significant difference in the scores of Deep Squat test, which is not surprising since it is the most complicated test to asses due to a large number of variables the assessor must evaluate.