ArticleJOSPT methods2026
Reliability of Evaluating Lumbar Paraspinal Muscles Using Magnetic Resonance and Computed Tomography Imaging in Adults with and without Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in JOSPT methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Spinal Muscle Health in Chronic Low Back Pain: An Integrated Narrative Review of Muscle Quality, Function, and Clinical Implications.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the reliability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) for assessing lumbar paraspinal muscles (LPMs) in adults with and without low back pain (LBP). Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA of Diagnostic Test Accuracy. Literature Search: Searches of Medline, Embase, PubMed Central, Science Citation Index Expanded, Emerging Sources Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and the KCI-Korean Journal Database were conducted in 2022 and updated in 2024, without date restrictions. Study Selection Criteria: Studies reporting the reliability of MRI and/or CT for assessing the size and/or quality of the erector spinae, multifidi, quadratus lumborum, and/or psoas in adults, with/without LBP, were included. Two reviewers independently selected the studies. Data Synthesis: Studies reporting intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were included in random-effects meta-analyses. All LPMs were analyzed in adults with and without LBP, followed by muscle-specific analyses regardless of LBP status. Results: Seventy-three MRI and thirteen CT studies were included. Most studies assessed the erector spinae and multifidi at lower lumbar levels and underreported reliability methods. Fifty-seven MRI and nine CT studies were included in meta-analyses. MRI demonstrated excellent reliability for evaluating LPM size and quality in adults with/without LBP (ICCs: 0.922-0.983). CT assessments showed good-to-excellent reliability (ICCs: 0.839-0.994), based on ≤4 studies. Muscle-specific meta-analyses confirmed excellent reliability for MRI (ICCs: 0.931-0.977) and CT (ICCs: 0.929-0.970). Conclusion: LPM assessments using MRI and CT demonstrate excellent reliability regardless of LBP status. However, limited CT evidence and underreported methodology highlight the need for additional research and improved reliability.
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.