ArticlePloS one2026
Evaluating physiological responses and forward head-neck posture in primary students in Thailand when carrying modified and traditional backpacks.
Article in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Carrying backpacks daily imposes a physical burden on school-aged children, raising increasing public concern. This study compared the physiological responses and head-neck posture of primary school students when carrying traditional versus modified bags. Thirty-two public primary school students aged 7-12 years participated. Physiological measures included heart rate (HR), oxygen saturation (SpO₂), blood pressure, and respiratory rate (RR). Head and neck tilt angles and forward head posture were assessed using photogrammetry and Kinovea software. Participants walked at a natural pace (1.1-1.3 m/s) along an 8-meter walkway for five minutes under five conditions: no bag, bilateral traditional bag, unilateral traditional bag, bilateral modified bag, and unilateral modified bag. Backpack design showed significant main effects on heart rate (p = 0.001, ηp² = 0.316), respiratory rate (p = 0.007, ηp² = 0.214), systolic blood pressure (p < 0.001, ηp² = 0.387), and diastolic blood pressure (p = 0.002, ηp² = 0.279), with higher values in the traditional condition (e.g., HR 95.94 ± 2.26 bpm; RR 31.59 ± 0.86 breaths/min; systolic 108.33 ± 1.30 mmHg; diastolic 78.05 ± 1.64 mmHg). Carrying method affected HR (p = 0.014, ηp² = 0.178), with higher values during unilateral use. No interaction effects were found for physiological variables (p > 0.05). SpO₂ remained stable (98.78-99.47%). For posture, significant effects of design were observed for neck tilt (p < 0.001, ηp² = 0.350), head tilt (p = 0.001, ηp² = 0.324), and forward head posture (p < 0.001, ηp² = 0.335). The traditional backpack produced smaller neck tilt (49.75° ± 1.05°) but greater head tilt (78.60° ± 1.56°) and forward head posture (8.68 ± 4.59 cm). Unilateral carrying increased head tilt (77.83° ± 1.56°, p = 0.021). Interaction effects were found for neck and head tilt (p < 0.05). The modified backpack reduces physiological strain and improves postural alignment, particularly under unilateral carrying, while bilateral use minimizes asymmetrical loading.
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.