Low Back PainNCT06890845
Body Posture, Joint Mobility, and Trunk Muscle Endurance Related to Lower Back Pain in Tennis Players
An observational study of Low Back Pain, run by Józef Piłsudski University of Physical Education at 1 site in Poland.
Trial summary
The aim of this study was to determine the significance of the impact of external factors (self-evaluation of the subjects) and internal factors, including the range of motion in the spine and hip joints, trunk muscle endurance and body posture of tennis players, on the occurrence and severity of low back pain. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 50 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Low Back Pain
- How many people
- 106 participants
- Where
- 1 sitePoland
- Study dates
- 1 Apr 2022to 30 Nov 2022
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 50 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Study population: Participants were recruited through announcements in tennis clubs, on internet portals, and on social media platforms within groups for amateur tennis players.
Who may be able to join
- provided written consent to participate in the study
- For Study Group:
- playing tennis at least 3 times per week for the past 2 years
- experiencing back pain in the last 6 months that prevented playing tennis
- For Comprarison Group I:
- playing tennis at least 3 times per week for the past 2 years
Show all 11Show fewer
- no lower back pain (confirmed via survey) in the last 6 months that would have prevented playing tennis
- For Comparison Group II:
- no lower back pain (confirmed via survey)
- regular physical activity at least 3 times a week
- no participation in asymmetrical sports
Who cannot join
- lack of written consent to participate in the study,
- history of surgical procedures involving the spine or torso,
- severe musculoskeletal pathologies in the medical history, such as previous cancers in the torso area, vertebral fractures, structural scoliosis,
- inability to assume the required test positions.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Body Posture, Joint Range of Motion and Trunk Muscle Endurance in Relation to Low Back Pain in Tennis Players
The aim of this study was to determine the significance of the impact of external factors (self-evaluation of the subjects) and internal factors, including the range of motion in the spine and hip joints, trunk muscle endurance and body posture of tennis players, on the occurrence and severity of low back pain.
Read the detailed description
The aim of the study was to compare tennis players with and without lower back pain (LBP) and individuals not engaged in asymmetric sports without LBP in terms of spinal flexion, extension, lateral bending range of motion, hip joint flexion, extension, internal and external rotation, modified seat and reach test results, trunk muscle endurance, body posture parameters, and survey information regarding training volume and stretching exercises. Identifying significant differences between participants with and without LBP could provide indications for modifying rehabilitation programs for amateur tennis players with LBP or for introducing preventive exercises targeting factors significantly influencing the occurrence of LBP in this population. Prior to the study, participants provided written consent and were informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time.
- Conditions
- Low Back Pain
- Keywords
- low back pain, tennis, ROM, muscle endurance, posture
- Medical subject headings
- Low Back Pain
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Study Group (SG) | Women and men amateur tennis players with LBP | |
| Comparison Group I (CGI) | Women and men amateur tennis players without LBP | |
| Comparison Group II (CGII) | Physically active women and men not engaged in asymmetric sports without LBP |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Hip range of motion
The hip range of motion was measured using a digital inclinometer. During hip rotation measurement, the subject lay prone with the pelvis stabilized by a strap. The tested hip was in a neutral position with the knee flexed to 90 degrees. The inclinometer was zeroed along the tibial axis when the tibial plateau was parallel to the ground. The range of motion was the angular difference between the initial and final positions.
For flexion, the subject lay supine with the non-tested lower limb stabilized. The inclinometer was zeroed parallel to the ground. The final position was where the thigh could no longer move further into flexion.
For extension, the subject .lay supine with the pelvis at the edge of the table. The subject maximally flexed both hips. The subject held the non-tested lower limb with both hands. On the tested side, the lower limb hung freely off the table. The inclinometer was zeroed on a surface parallel to the ground, and in the final position of the test.
Measured: Baseline
Spine range of motion
The measurement was conducted using a Baseline bubble inclinometer. For flexion, the patient stood in a relaxed position. The spinous processes of Th12 and S1 were palpated and marked. The inclinometer was zeroed at Th12, and the patient executed a full forward bend. The same was repeated at S1. The lumbar flexion range was the difference between readings at Th12 and S1.
For extension, the patient also stood relaxed. Before measuring, the patient performed three maximum lumbar extensions. The inclinometer was zeroed at Th12, and the patient executed a maximum extension. The same procedure was repeated at S1. The lumbar extension range was the difference between readings at Th12 and S1.
For lateral trunk flexion, the measurement was the distance between a point on the lateral thigh, where the tip of the third finger reached in a relaxed standing position, and a point on the thigh/shin after performing maximum lateral flexion.
Measured: Baseline
Modified sit and reach test
To perform the test, the subject sat on the examination table in such a way that one lower limb rested on the floor with the knee flexed at 90 degrees, while the other limb was placed on the table with the knee joint extended. The subject positioned their hands in front of them, thumbs joined and palms facing down. With elbows fully extended, the subject reached as far forward as possible, placing their hands on the table. The distance from the tip of the third finger to the heel line was measured. Positive results indicated that the tip of the third finger extended beyond the heel line, while negative results indicated that it was positioned before the heel line.
Measured: Baseline
Body posture
Posture assessment was conducted using the Diers Formetric 4D system, a non-invasive method with proven accuracy and reproducibility. This system employs surface topography for three-dimensional mapping of the subject's torso.
The measurement followed the manufacturer's methodology. The subject stood 2 meters from the projector and camera, with foot placement marked on the treadmill. The back and neck were exposed, and undergarments adjusted to reveal the upper gluteal cleft. The subject assumed a relaxed standing position without posture correction. The examiner adjusted the projector height so that the central reference stripe aligned with the lower angle of the scapula. The device performed 12 scans in 6 seconds (2 Hz). The Diers software analyzed approximately 50,000 points on the subject's back, presenting a three-dimensional model of the spine with posture parameters.
Measured: Baseline
Trunk muscle endurance
The protocol for assessing trunk muscle endurance was based on the McGill et al. (1999) method. [McGill, S. M., Childs, A., \& Liebenson, C. (1999). Endurance times for low back stabilization exercises: Clinical targets for testing and training from a normal database. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 80(8), 941-944. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-9993(99)90087-4]
Measured: Baseline
Secondary outcomes (3)
Oswestry Disability Index
The survey assessed the level of pain and disability associated with LBP.
Measured: Baseline
Custom survey for individuals not playing tennis
The survey covered spinal pain, health status, physical activity, and the presence of chronic diseases
Measured: Baseline
Custom survey for tennis players
The survey covered training volume, engagement in general conditioning and stretching exercises, presence of chronic diseases, history of injuries, and the level of spinal pain
Measured: Baseline
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted24 Mar 2025
- Study start1 Apr 2022
- Primary completion30 Nov 2022
- Study completion30 Nov 2022
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (2)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Low Back PainStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Cross-sectional
- Enrolment
- 106 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Józef Piłsudski University of Physical Education
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06890845
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Research#Group no 4
- Status last verified
- Jul 2024
- First submitted
- 17 Mar 2025
- Last updated
- 24 Mar 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Avman MA, Osmotherly PG, Snodgrass S, Rivett DA. Is there an association between hip range of motion and nonspecific low back pain? A systematic review. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2019 Jul;42:38-51. doi: 10.1016/j.msksp.2019.03.002. Epub 2019 Mar 30.
PubMed 31030110Chun SW, Lim CY, Kim K, Hwang J, Chung SG. The relationships between low back pain and lumbar lordosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J. 2017 Aug;17(8):1180-1191. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.04.034. Epub 2017 May 2.
PubMed 28476690
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 24 Mar 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Body Posture, Joint Range of Motion and Trunk Muscle Endurance in Relation to Low Back Pain in Tennis Players
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06890845
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Research#Group no 4
- Conditions
- Low Back Pain
- Keywords
- low back pain, tennis, ROM, muscle endurance, posture
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 106 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Józef Piłsudski University of Physical EducationUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Apr 2022 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Nov 2022 (actual)
- Study completion
- 30 Nov 2022 (actual)
- First posted
- 24 Mar 2025 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The aim of this study was to determine the significance of the impact of external factors (self-evaluation of the subjects) and internal factors, including the range of motion in the spine and hip joints, trunk muscle endurance and body posture of tennis players, on the occurrence and severity of low back pain.
Detailed description
The aim of the study was to compare tennis players with and without lower back pain (LBP) and individuals not engaged in asymmetric sports without LBP in terms of spinal flexion, extension, lateral bending range of motion, hip joint flexion, extension, internal and external rotation, modified seat and reach test results, trunk muscle endurance, body posture parameters, and survey information regarding training volume and stretching exercises. Identifying significant differences between participants with and without LBP could provide indications for modifying rehabilitation programs for amateur tennis players with LBP or for introducing preventive exercises targeting factors significantly influencing the occurrence of LBP in this population. Prior to the study, participants provided written consent and were informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Cross-sectional
- Number of arms
- 3
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Study Group (SG) | – | –Women and men amateur tennis players with LBP |
| Comparison Group I (CGI) | – | –Women and men amateur tennis players without LBP |
| Comparison Group II (CGII) | – | –Physically active women and men not engaged in asymmetric sports without LBP |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 50 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
- Study population
- Participants were recruited through announcements in tennis clubs, on internet portals, and on social media platforms within groups for amateur tennis players.
Key inclusion criteria (11 listed)
- provided written consent to participate in the study
- playing tennis at least 3 times per week for the past 2 years
- experiencing back pain in the last 6 months that prevented playing tennis
- playing tennis at least 3 times per week for the past 2 years
- no lower back pain (confirmed via survey) in the last 6 months that would have prevented playing tennis
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- lack of written consent to participate in the study,
- history of surgical procedures involving the spine or torso,
- severe musculoskeletal pathologies in the medical history, such as previous cancers in the torso area, vertebral fractures, structural scoliosis,
- inability to assume the required test positions.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
Hip range of motion
Time frame: Baseline
The hip range of motion was measured using a digital inclinometer. During hip rotation measurement, the subject lay prone with the pelvis stabilized by a strap. The tested hip was in a neutral position with the knee flexed to 90 degrees. The inclinometer was zeroed along the tibial axis when the tibial plateau was parallel to the ground. The range of motion was the angular difference between the initial and final positions. For flexion, the subject lay supine with the non-tested lower limb stabilized. The inclinometer was zeroed parallel to the ground. The final position was where the thigh could no longer move further into flexion. For extension, the subject .lay supine with the pelvis at the edge of the table. The subject maximally flexed both hips. The subject held the non-tested lower limb with both hands. On the tested side, the lower limb hung freely off the table. The inclinometer was zeroed on a surface parallel to the ground, and in the final position of the test.
Spine range of motion
Time frame: Baseline
The measurement was conducted using a Baseline bubble inclinometer. For flexion, the patient stood in a relaxed position. The spinous processes of Th12 and S1 were palpated and marked. The inclinometer was zeroed at Th12, and the patient executed a full forward bend. The same was repeated at S1. The lumbar flexion range was the difference between readings at Th12 and S1. For extension, the patient also stood relaxed. Before measuring, the patient performed three maximum lumbar extensions. The inclinometer was zeroed at Th12, and the patient executed a maximum extension. The same procedure was repeated at S1. The lumbar extension range was the difference between readings at Th12 and S1. For lateral trunk flexion, the measurement was the distance between a point on the lateral thigh, where the tip of the third finger reached in a relaxed standing position, and a point on the thigh/shin after performing maximum lateral flexion.
Modified sit and reach test
Time frame: Baseline
To perform the test, the subject sat on the examination table in such a way that one lower limb rested on the floor with the knee flexed at 90 degrees, while the other limb was placed on the table with the knee joint extended. The subject positioned their hands in front of them, thumbs joined and palms facing down. With elbows fully extended, the subject reached as far forward as possible, placing their hands on the table. The distance from the tip of the third finger to the heel line was measured. Positive results indicated that the tip of the third finger extended beyond the heel line, while negative results indicated that it was positioned before the heel line.
Body posture
Time frame: Baseline
Posture assessment was conducted using the Diers Formetric 4D system, a non-invasive method with proven accuracy and reproducibility. This system employs surface topography for three-dimensional mapping of the subject's torso. The measurement followed the manufacturer's methodology. The subject stood 2 meters from the projector and camera, with foot placement marked on the treadmill. The back and neck were exposed, and undergarments adjusted to reveal the upper gluteal cleft. The subject assumed a relaxed standing position without posture correction. The examiner adjusted the projector height so that the central reference stripe aligned with the lower angle of the scapula. The device performed 12 scans in 6 seconds (2 Hz). The Diers software analyzed approximately 50,000 points on the subject's back, presenting a three-dimensional model of the spine with posture parameters.
Trunk muscle endurance
Time frame: Baseline
The protocol for assessing trunk muscle endurance was based on the McGill et al. (1999) method. [McGill, S. M., Childs, A., \& Liebenson, C. (1999). Endurance times for low back stabilization exercises: Clinical targets for testing and training from a normal database. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 80(8), 941-944. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0003-9993(99)90087-4]
3 secondary outcomes
Oswestry Disability Index
Time frame: Baseline
Custom survey for individuals not playing tennis
Time frame: Baseline
Custom survey for tennis players
Time frame: Baseline
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 24 Mar 2025.
- Background: PubMed 31030110Avman MA, Osmotherly PG, Snodgrass S, Rivett DA. Is there an association between hip range of motion and nonspecific low back pain? A systematic review. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 2019 Jul;42:38-51. doi: 10.1016/j.msksp.2019.03.002. Epub 2019 Mar 30.
- Background: PubMed 28476690Chun SW, Lim CY, Kim K, Hwang J, Chung SG. The relationships between low back pain and lumbar lordosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J. 2017 Aug;17(8):1180-1191. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.04.034. Epub 2017 May 2.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Low Back Pain
Not yet recruiting
Effects of Hip Hinge Exercises on Pain, Range of Motion and Functional Disability in Non-specific Low Back Pain.
Low Back Pain
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Lumbar Stabilization Exercises With and Without YTWL (Scapular Stabilization Exercises) on Reducing Chronic Low Back Pain and Related Disability. A Randomized Clinical Trial,
Chronic Non Specific Mechanical Low Back Pain
Not yet recruiting
Comparing Non-Medicine Strategies for Improving Low Back Pain
Chronic Low-back Pain (cLBP), High-Impact Chronic Pain (HICP)
Not yet recruiting
Effects of Whole-Body Vibration and Cervical Stabilization With Core Stabilization in Young Adults With Non-Specific Low Back Pain
Nonspecific Low Back Pain
Not yet recruiting
Spinery Basivertebral Nerve Ablation for Vertebrogenic Chronic Low Back Pain
Low Back Pain, Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP)
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Low Back Pain, run by Józef Piłsudski University of Physical Education at 1 site in Poland.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 11 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 24 Mar 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Poland. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Hip range of motion (time frame: Baseline). The study lists 5 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06890845, which also lists 2 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 24 Mar 2025.