Kim · PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation 2014 · Cross-sectional case-control study · n=30

Patients with low back pain demonstrate increased activity of the posterior oblique sling muscle during prone hip extension.

Cited 40 times in the scientific literature.

Level 4 - case-series / case-control

Case-control cross-sectional physiological study

PubMed 24384361 · doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2013.12.006 · record verified 2026-08-31

What was done

Researchers compared surface electromyographic (EMG) activity of posterior oblique sling muscles during a prone hip extension test between 15 women with chronic low back pain (CLBP) and 15 pain-free female controls in a clinical laboratory setting. Normalized EMG signal amplitudes were compared between groups using two-sample t-tests for the contralateral latissimus dorsi, contralateral erector spinae, ipsilateral erector spinae, ipsilateral gluteus maximus, and ipsilateral biceps femoris.

What was found

The abstract does not report raw numeric EMG amplitudes or effect sizes, but reports statistically significant increases in normalized EMG signal amplitudes in women with CLBP relative to controls for: - Contralateral latissimus dorsi (P = .01) - Contralateral erector spinae (P < .01) - Ipsilateral erector spinae (P < .01) - Ipsilateral gluteus maximus (P = .03) - Ipsilateral biceps femoris (P = .02)

Why it matters

This study demonstrates altered motor control and generalized hyperactivation across the posterior myofascial chain during prone hip extension in women with chronic low back pain, providing mechanistic insight for rehabilitation assessments.

Limits

The sample size is very small (15 participants per group) and restricted exclusively to women, limiting generalizability to men. The cross-sectional design cannot establish whether altered muscle activation is a cause or consequence of chronic low back pain. The abstract does not report baseline demographic details, pain duration, pain severity, or specific numerical EMG amplitude values and confidence intervals.

Cited by