ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2026
The hidden architecture of back pain: ultrasound-based lumbar multifidus pennation angle analysis - a cross-sectional pilot study.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChronic low back pain (CLBP) is associated with structural and functional alterations in the lumbar-multifidus (LM) muscle, a key-stabilizer of the spine. In this pilot study, Pennation-angle, a well-established muscle architecture marker not previously assessed in CLBP, was evaluated using ultrasound to compare LM structure between CLBP-patients and healthy-controls and examine its relationship with muscle thickness, pain-intensity and activity-levels.
methodsThis cross-sectional study included 40 adults aged 18–35 years (20 CLBP-patients, 20 healthy-controls) at AIIMS Jodhpur. Bilateral ultrasound-imaging at the L4–L5 level was performed, and the average of right and left measurements was used to quantify superficial and deep LM pennation-angle and muscle-thickness. Pain intensity (NRS-scale) and physical activity levels were recorded. Group comparisons were performed using t-tests or Mann–Whitney U tests; correlations by Pearson’s or Spearman’s coefficients.
resultsCLBP participants showed significantly reduced superficial-pennation angle (7.03 ± 0.98° vs. 8.85 ± 1.25°, p < 0.001; Cohen’s d = − 1.62), superficial muscle-thickness (1.07 ± 0.187 cm vs. 1.29 ± 0.258 cm, p = 0.004; d = − 0.96), and deep muscle-thickness (1.18 ± 0.190 cm vs. 1.32 ± 0.190 cm, p = 0.026; d = − 0.73), while deep-pennation angle showed no group difference (p = 0.235; d = − 0.38). Superficial-pennation angle correlated positively with superficial muscle-thickness (r = 0.678, p < 0.001). NRS showed weak negative trends with all LM parameters. Physical activity distributions differed but were statistically non-significant (χ²=2.88, p = 0.237), although effect size indicated a small-to-moderate trend toward higher sedentary behaviour in CLBP (Cramer’s V = 0.268).
conclusionThe observed reduction in LM pennation-angle and muscle-thickness reflects potential architectural compromise and disuse-related atrophy in CLBP. The strong angle–thickness correlation supports the interdependence of muscle size and fiber orientation. Although pain-intensity and activity-levels were not statistically associated to LM morphology, their negative and sedentary trends may still reflect behavioural and pain-related influences on subtle muscle decline. CLBP patients demonstrate distinct LM architectural alterations, emphasizing the value of ultrasound-based assessment and supporting targeted rehabilitation strategies focused on restoring LM function and morphology. INSTITUTIONAL ETHICS COMMITTEE REGISTRATION NUMBER: AIIMS/IEC/2025/5525.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.