Low back pain (LBP) is associated with dysfunction of global and local muscle systems, feedback and feedforward postural control mechanisms. Physiotherapists include the use of feedback as part of treatment protocols. Such feedback can focus on a variety of neuromuscular impairments, although the literature related to feedback on the management of LBP has focused mainly on local muscle system impairments. Furthermore, there are various characteristics of feedback that can lead to motor control enhancement or deterioration. The aim of this manuscript is to present a rationale for feedback provision as a rehabilitation tool on the management of LBP. Feedback provision should focus on the main neuromuscular impairment presented by the patient. The suggested rationale describes decision-making stages for the use and progress of feedback interventions. Local muscle system impairment might benefit more from parameter feedback provision, while global muscle system and feedback mechanism impairments may benefit better from program feedback. The described rationale has the potential to help clinicians select the appropriate feedback for the treatment of their patients. Additionally, the presented rationale could be used by researchers to assess how different forms of feedback provision impact on clinical outcomes.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 October 2011.
All research outputs
#19,155,287
of 27,776,330 outputs
Outputs from Manual Therapy
#105
of 136 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,200
of 126,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Manual Therapy
#5
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,776,330 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 136 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 126,310 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.
