Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Instruments for assessing back pain in athletes: A systematic review

  • Vinicius Diniz Azevedo ,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    regina.silva@ifg.edu.br (RMFS); vinicius.diniz.azevedo@hotmail.com (VDA)

    Affiliation Federal University of Goiás, Goiânia, Brazil

    ⨯
  • Regina Márcia Ferreira Silva ,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    regina.silva@ifg.edu.br (RMFS); vinicius.diniz.azevedo@hotmail.com (VDA)

    Affiliation Goiano Federal Institute, Itumbiara, Brazil

    ⨯
  • Silvia Cristina de Carvalho Borges,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Federal University of Goiás, Goiânia, Brazil

    ⨯
  • Michele da Silva Valadão Fernades,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Goiano Federal Institute, Itumbiara, Brazil

    ⨯
  • Vicente Miñana-Signes,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

    ⨯
  • Manuel Monfort-Pañego,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain

    ⨯
  • Priscilla Rayanne E. Silva Noll,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Goiano Federal Institute, Itumbiara, Brazil, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    ⨯
  • Matias Noll

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Federal University of Goiás, Goiânia, Brazil, Goiano Federal Institute, Itumbiara, Brazil

    ⨯

Abstract

Back pain in athletes varies with sport, age, and sex, which can impair athletic performance, thereby contributing to retirement. Studies on back pain in this population use questionnaires to assess components, such as pain intensity and location and factors associated with pain, among others. This study aimed to review validated questionnaires that have assessed back pain in athletes. This systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) by searching the databases Embase, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, and Scopus. The articles were selected regardless of language and date of publication. Titles and abstracts were independently selected by two reviewers; disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. All the steps were conducted using the software Rayyan. The methodological quality of the questionnaire validation articles was assessed using a critical appraisal tool checklist proposed by Brink and Louw. The search returned 4748 articles, of which 60 were selected for this review, including 5 questionnaire validation studies. These articles were published between 2004 and 2022, which were performed in more than 20 countries, particularly Germany (14) and Sweden (5). Thirteen different instruments were identified, of which 46.1% were developed in Europe. The most commonly used questionnaires were the Oswestry Disability Index and Nordic Standardized Questionnaire. In addition, five questionnaire validation studies were selected for methodological quality assessment, with only two studies demonstrating high methodological quality. The following three instruments were identified for assessing back pain specifically in athletes: Micheli Functional Scale, Persian Functional Rating Index, and Athlete Disability Index. This review confirmed that all three instruments were specifically designed to assess this condition.

Citation: Azevedo VD, Ferreira Silva RM, de Carvalho Borges SC, Fernades MdSV, Miñana-Signes V, Monfort-Pañego M, et al. (2023) Instruments for assessing back pain in athletes: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 18(11): e0293333. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293333

Editor: Esedullah Akaras, Erzurum Technical University: Erzurum Teknik Universitesi, TURKEY

Received: March 24, 2023; Accepted: October 10, 2023; Published: November 3, 2023

Copyright: © 2023 Azevedo et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

1 Introduction

Pain is defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) as “an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with, or resembling that associated with, actual or potential tissue damage [1].” Musculoskeletal pain has been widely researched in the scientific literature [2] and may occur in various areas of the body, such as the back. Back pain [(BP)] can be conceptualized as, “existing or non-existing, present or previous pain of any kind in the thoraco-lumbar spine [3]” or even as “pain in the cervical, thoracic and/or lumbar areas [4–7].” Thus, controlling BP is highly relevant and crucial, particularly for athletes [8] Soon, sustained pain results in a decline in athletic performance, which makes it difficult to maintain a competitive level of play [9].

BP in athletes is associated with different factors, such as sleep [10–12], high training volumes [13], sex [14, 15], sport [16, 17], and psychosocial dimensions [18], and other factors [19]. This condition has been studied in sports, such as rowing, cycling, gymnastics, shooting, rugby, and football [20–23]. Therefore, medical literature has increasingly recognized the need to consider BP a disease, and therefore, evaluate it [24]. Pain assessment is so important that if we ask the individual if he has pain, his simple answer is not enough for reliability of response [25].

Most (observational and experimental) epidemiological studies aimed at assessing BP and associated risk factors are based on questionnaires [26, 27]. For example, the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), and the Pain Severity subscale of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI-PS) are the most commonly used instruments to measure pain intensity in low back pain [28] and the first two are considered reliable in assessing low back pain severity [29]. Even assessing pain intensity using verbal rating scales and visual analog scales has been considered valid for many years [30]. Operationally, these methods are used to evaluate a research object and measure the characteristics and/or attributes related to the phenomena, individual, process, or organization [31]. Developing a questionnaire is a rigorous and complex process, involving writing, ordering, and presenting items [32].

Many questionnaires assessing BP are prevalent in different populations [2, 33, 34]. However, athletes are subject to more intense and sport-specific variables, which are not included in these questionnaires [35]. Therefore, certain questionnaires have limitations; however, efforts have been made to develop specific questionnaires for athletes [10, 22, 36–39]. However, despite these efforts, no instrument is considered the gold standard for athletes [13].

This study is relevant because the demand in health care, combined with the need to use evaluative instruments, has contributed to increase, for example, the pressure on health care professionals to ensure the implementation of evidence-based practice. Thus, publication of systematic review studies, as well as others that synthesize research results, is an important action for evidence-based practice. Moreover, this type of study serves to guide the development of projects, indicating new directions for future investigations. Therefore, the aim of this study was to review the scientific literature related to validated questionnaires to evaluate BP in athletes. The hypothesis is that there are few valid and reliable instruments to evaluate BP in athletes and that the existing ones contribute little to the specific assessment.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Protocol and registration

To support this review, it was performed and published an article on a systematic review protocol entitled: “Evaluating Instruments for Assessing Back Pain in Athletes: A Systematic Review Protocol” [35].

This systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [40]. To increase transparency and reproducibility, while avoiding duplication of efforts on the same topic, this review was submitted to and registered in the International Register of Prospective Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) under CRD42020201299. Ethical approval was not required because this study did not involve human participants.

2.2 Research question identification

The main question of the study was “what are the existing, valid, or reliable instruments for assessing BP in athletes?”

2.3 Search strategy and eligibility criteria

The initial search for articles was performed by one researcher (VDA) on October 27, 2022, using the following five databases: MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL. Search terms were combined using Boolean operators (AND/OR), and searches for articles were performed in the databases without restricting the year, country, and language of publication. Box 1 presents the logical structure of the general search strategy with the Boolean descriptors and operators used in the databases. The search strategy for each database is presented in S1 Annex.

Box 1. Electronic search strategy

thumbnail
Download:

This review included articles whose instruments met the following criteria: a) mentioned prevalence, incidence, intensity, location, functional disability, or other BP-related components, b) assessed athletes and sports-related variables, and c) could be created, adapted, or translated but were validated or at least tested for their reliability. In this research, validated questionnaires were analyzed regardless of the country. Therefore, the same questionnaire could be validated for athletes in different countries and may thus vary based on cultural adaptation.

Thus, the articles that met the following criteria were excluded from this review: a) systematic reviews, reports, opinion articles, response letters, and book chapters, b) research that included individuals with physical or mental disabilities, pregnant or lactating women, and participants with spinal fractures or who have recently undergone surgery, c) studies conducted in specific and/or traditional communities (for example, rural communities, indigenous populations, refugees, uncontacted individuals, and remote and isolated communities).

The methodological quality was assessed by selecting articles that evaluated the measurement properties of instruments specifically developed for athletes. In this review, the term BP was defined as “cervical, thoracic and/or lumbar pain [4–7],” and athletes were defined as “individuals who participate in athletic competitions and are involved in training activities for four or more hours per week [41–43].”

2.4 Study review and selection process

The results from the search strategies were imported into the Mendeley software; duplicate articles were identified and removed. The first selection phase consisted of reading the title and abstracts to assess whether each article met the eligibility criteria. After this phase, the articles were read completely to confirm their eligibility. All the steps were performed using the Rayyan software, which is specifically designed for conducting systematic reviews [44].

The article-selection step was independently performed by two reviewers, and disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Interrater reliability for individual component ratings was determined by calculating the percent agreement and Cohen’s Kappa coefficient. Thereafter, eligible articles were included in this systematic review.

2.5 Methodological quality

The methodological quality of the articles that evaluated the measurement properties of the instruments specifically developed for athletes was determined using the Critical Appraisal Tool (CAT) proposed by Brink and Louw [45]. The scale consists of 13 items, of which five refer to both validity and reliability, four to validity, and four to reliability studies. Each item is scored as “Yes,” “No,” or “Not Applicable (N/A).” This scale was used by the same independent reviewers. A study is considered of high methodological quality when the score ≥ 60% [46, 47].

2.6 Reviewer training

Before starting the search process, the reviewers who participated in the eligibility assessments were trained concerning the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the study, which included a practical assessment of the eligibility of 50 abstracts [7]. Lastly, the training process covered aspects such as correctly using the software Rayyan and standardizing procedures. The reviewers were trained on how to use the software to use the same selection criteria for the articles. In this case, at first, a reviewer included in the software a file with data from the articles and began the selection of those that fit the selection criteria by reading the titles and abstracts, including justifying the exclusions. Later, the second reviewer performed the same procedure.

2.7 Data extraction

The following data were extracted from the selected articles: author and year of publication, country of research, participants’ age, name of the evaluation instruments, sport, sample size, level of physical activity, and BP definition. The following data were extracted from the selected instruments: type, name, number of items of the instrument, assessment method and objective of the assessment instrument. The following data were extracted from the studies selected for methodological quality assessment: study (author and year), instrument objective, name (instrument abbreviation), sport/activities assessed by the instrument, validity, internal consistency and reliability.

3 Results

The PRISMA selection process and flow diagram of this systematic review is shown in Fig 1. In total, 4,748 articles were imported from five databases (Embase, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, and Scopus). Of this total, 2,136 duplicates were removed, and 2,376 articles were excluded after reading the title and abstract. The remaining 236 articles were read completely, subsequently excluding 176 articles. Ultimately, 60 articles were selected for this review. Upon article selection, the inter-rater reliability was 96%, with a Cohen’s kappa of 0.53.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram of articles included in this review.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293333.g001

In total, 60 articles were selected for this review, including 5 athlete questionnaire validation studies. The articles were published between 2004 and 2022, and the sample size ranged from 8 [48] to 2,116 [49] participants. The participants’ age ranged from 10-year-old gymnasts [50] to 56-year-old golfers [51]. The terms that defined the athletes’ competitive level, such as educational (education, university student, elite sports school), divisional (international, national, regional, and local), age (veterans), competition (professional or elite and recreational (club and intramural sports and Junior Olympic program) levels varied considerably between the studies.

Of the 60 articles, most were surveyed in athletes in Germany [14, 18, 49, 52–62], in Sweden [3, 63–66], and in Iran [36, 37, 67–69]. Moreover, also in Norway [11, 70, 71], Poland [72–74], United States [50, 51, 75], the Netherlands [76, 77], Belgium [78], Switzerland [12, 79], Finland [80, 81], Australia [82, 83], Spain [84, 85], Saudi Arabia [86, 87], Estonia [88], Serbia [89], New Zealand [90], Ukraine [91], China [92], Austria [93], Brazil [94], and India [95]. Three articles [48, 96, 97] failed to report the study site, and one study was conducted in several countries [98]. In addition, only 23 studies defined BP, whereas 37 studies did not. Further details are provided in Tables 1 and 2.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Summary of the article included in this review.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293333.t001

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Summary of the instrument validation articles and their questionnaires.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293333.t002

Of the total number of articles included in this review, only 5 were validated questionnaires. These questionnaires were developed and validated for athletes; therefore, their articles were selected for methodological quality assessment. Each of these 5 articles validated a single questionnaire, including the Micheli Functional Scale (MFS) [36, 68], Persian Functional Rating Index (PFRI) [37, 67], and Athlete Disability Index (ADI) [22].

All the five studies assessed validity and reliability. Two studies [36] did not report in which sports the tests were performed. For criterion validity, MFS demonstrated excellent correlation with the Oswestry gold standard Low BP Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) and significantly identified BP in younger and older patients and among female and male patients, thereby indicating that MFS is a valid and widely applicable tool. The total score of the Persian version of this instrument also significantly correlated with the total score of the visual analog scale (VAS) and PFRI.

The total score of PFRI positively correlated with the total score of the Persian Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (PRMDQ) [99]. These data indicate the construct validity of PFRI in athletes with low BP [37]. PFRI also strongly correlated with the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) and the Persian Neck Disability Index (NDI) [67], indicating the construct validity of the PFRI in athletes with neck pain.

Moreover, the ADI significantly correlated with both the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) [22]; therefore, all 3 questionnaires identified athletes with a low BP disability and rated the levels of severity of their disabilities. Moreover, only MFS was identified as an instrument used in athletes in our review. All the 3 questionnaires had high reliability and validity scores, as shown in Table 2.

This review identified 13 questionnaires. The ODI [100] and Nordic Standardized Questionnaire (SNQ) [101] were the two instruments most frequently used in the studies. This reseacrh identified 24 (43.7%) articles using ODI and 14 (25.4%) using SNQ. ODI is an index derived from the instrument Oswestry Low BP Disability Questionnaire (OLBPDQ) [100], developed by Fairbank and Pynsent. A high rate of usability of these instruments was also reported by another systematic review [13]. The Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) [102] is a shorter version of the original MPQ [103]; both questionnaires were developed in Canada and by the same authors. Information on the questionnaires identified in this review is presented in Box 2.

Box 2. Instruments found in this review

thumbnail
Download:

Six instruments were developed in Europe (RMDQ, ODI, SNQ, Faces Pain Scale, Chronic Pain Grade Scale, Acute Low BP Screenings Questionnaire- Dutch Language Version), five in North America (MFS, CPG, MPQ, SF-MPQ, BP Functional Scale), and only one in South America (BP and Body Posture Evaluation Instrument) and in Asia (ADI). The number of items of the instruments ranged from 5 [36, 105] to 74 [103]. Fig 2 illustrates the origin of each instrument.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. Origin of each instrument.

ADI: Athlete Disability Index, ALBPSQ-DLV: Acute Low Back Pain Screenings Questionnaire-Dutch Language Version, BACKPEI: Back Pain And Body Posture Evaluation Instrument, BPFS: Back Pain Functional Scale, CPG: Chronic Pain Grade Questionnaire, CPGS: Chronic Pain Rating Scale, MFS: Micheli Functional Scale, MPQ: McGill Pain Questionnaire, ODI: Oswestry Disability Index, RMDQ: Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire, SF-MPQ: McGill Pain Questionnaire Short Form, SNQ: Nordic Standardized Questionnaire.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293333.g002

3.1 Methodological quality

The methodological quality of 2 articles was rated as high (score > 60%) (Table 3). The mean score of the methodological quality assessment was 55.5%. The inter- (item 4) and intra- (item 5) rater blindness, randomization (item 6), and period between repeated measures (item 8) of the items were not assessed because they are not applicable to validity studies.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 3. Results from the methodological quality assessment of the articles selected in this review.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293333.t003

The items clarifying the rater’s qualifications or competence (item 2) and describing cases of sample loss (item 12) were listed in all the articles as “no,” i.e., classified as methodological shortcomings. These results prove that, despite the high rate of agreement with other instruments, all the articles failed to report or clarify key information concerning the instrument development process (validity and reliability) and, therefore, lack relevant methodological data for this quality assessment process. Considering the other items, number 1 is related to the characteristics of the participants, item 3 assesses the suitability of the study design, item 7 assesses the data collection period, items 9 to 11 examine the details of the procedure and, lastly, item 13 evaluates the statistical details.

The authors of the tool used to assess the methodological quality information such that if insufficient information was provided in some items, the item would be marked with “no [45].” Details on the articles are outlined in Table 3.

The MFS was validated as a back-specific instrument for the functional assessment of young athletes in 2012 by a research group of the Division of Sports Medicine of the Children’s Hospital of Boston. This study included 94 athletes: 44 and 50 with and without low-BP, respectively. This instrument has 5 items and gathers information on three domains: symptoms (degree to which BP affects sports activity), activities of daily living (degree to which pain is associated with back extension and/or upright activities, sitting and/or flexion activities, and jumping) and lastly, a VAS for pain assessment. The authors stated certain limitations in the validation of the instrument, such as unequal distribution by age (between individuals with BP and controls in the younger age group of athletes) and by sex and the absence of correlation of MFS with minimum, moderate, and severe scores. At the end of the study, MFS was considered a valid instrument to assess the pain and functional levels of young athletes [36].

The reliability and validity of the PFRI for athletes with low-BP were examined in 2015 by a research group of the Tehran University of Medical Sciences. In total, 100 athletes with low-BP and 50 healthy athletes participated in the study. This instrument contains 10 items and measures the pain and function from 0 (no pain or can do all activities) to 4 (the worst possible pain/ or cannot do any activity) [111]. The authors indicated a limitation in the validation of the instrument: the responsiveness of PFRI was not examined. Nevertheless, they concluded that PFRI is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing the functional status of athletes with low BP [37].

A year later, the same research group validated the cross-culturally adapted PFRI for assessing athletes with neck pain [67]. In total, 100 athletes with neck pain and 50 healthy athletes participated in this study. Among the study limitations, the authors reported that the effect size-based responsiveness of the PFRI to detect changes over time was not evaluated and that they evaluated only the Persian version of the instrument. Notwithstanding these limitations, at the end of the study, the PFRI was considered a valid and reliable instrument for assessing the functional status of athletes with neck pain [67].

The ADI was recently analyzed by a group of researchers from two Iranian Universities and Stanford University [22], who assessed the validity and reliability of ADI. In total, 165 male and female athletes participated in this study. ADI contains 12 questions covering pain intensity, stretching and strengthening or weight training exercises, sport-specific moves or skills, and movement involving back rotations, among other questions. As a study limitation, the authors reported that the intraclass correlation coefficient of the question concerning sexual activity could not be calculated. However, they were able to identify a correlation between ADI and MFS. At the end of the study, the authors concluded that ADI is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing disability in athletes with BP [22].

4 Discussion

Some systematic reviews have previously investigated the existence of instruments for evaluating BP [112–114]. Systematic reviews organize data objectively and may report significant results that potentially contribute to various studies. Therefore, reviews that systematize instruments for assessing pain in specific populations are relevant because these results may aid researchers in better selection of instruments according to their research objective. The main purpose of this study was to identify the instruments used in the literature to assess BP in athletes and summarize the articles that developed questionnaires for athletes. The hypothesis was that few instruments are valid to assess BP in athletes and that the available instruments contribute little to the specific assessment of BP in this population.

This systematic review summarized the results of research on BP assessment instruments in 12,912 athletes from 24 countries that were part of the studies. The studies included in this review used different instruments to assess the pain for athletes in different sports, training levels, ages, sexes, and ethnicities. The main results demonstrated that 24 (43.7%) articles used ODI and 14 (25.4%) articles used SNQ; i.e., 69% of all the articles used non-validated instruments. These two instruments were also found in other systematic reviews [13, 23, 114]. Furthermore, many instruments for assessing BP were not specifically developed to assess athletes and may have been used in several studies owing to the limited number of instruments available for this population, according to the results presented above.

In addition, 6 (46.15%), 5 (38.4%), 1 (7.7%), and 1 (7.7%) instrument(s) identified in this review were developed in Europe, North America, South America, and Asia, respectively. These results demonstrated the increased interest of developed countries in this topic and instruments developed for BP research. Considering the study site of the articles, 40 (72.7%) studies were conducted in Europe. These results reveal that countries from other continents, such as the American and African countries, require further research and studies for developing instruments for athletes.

For methodological quality assessment remained 5 articles. Another review on questionnaires [115] also identified a low number of articles for methodological quality assessment. In this research, these five articles validated the following questionnaires: MFS [36, 68], PFRI [37, 67], and ADI [22]. Upon evaluating each instrument individually, it was realized that the instruments differed substantially in terms of items and extent to which their psychometric properties were evaluated; thus, each instrument possesses an objective and functionality.

The MFS is considered a valid instrument for assessing the pain and functional levels in young athletes. Conversely, the PFRI is considered a valid and reliable tool for assessing the functional status in athletes with low-back and neck pain. Lastly, the ADI is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing disability in athletes with BP.

In this review, only two of these three (66.6%) studies selected for methodological quality assessment were classified as having high quality [22, 36] compared to other studies, in which no article was rated as a high-quality study [116, 117]. Moreover, the checklist proposed by Brink & Louw evaluates the quality of the articles and not their measuring instruments. Therefore, the lack of evidence for BP assessment instruments, in general, is not evaluated in this research.

Limitations and strengths should be highlighted. First, the instruments used for assessing BP in athletes lack standardization and are thus heterogeneous. The lack of standardization leads researchers and professionals to use less accurate evaluation strategies. Moreover, the lack of standardization makes it difficult to identify faults and problems, can lead to recurring errors, generates excessive work and rework, and can have low reliability. Second, because the instruments assess different factors, such as pain intensity, functional capacity, physical disability, quality of life, musculoskeletal disorders, pain monitoring, etc., their selection may be complex and hinder certain studies. Third, this review did not assess the quality of the instruments. To find the right tool for a survey, it is necessary, for example, to decide what to measure and then select the most suitable instrument for measuring the results. The use of tools to improve the way research is carried out has a direct impact on the reliability of the results.

Moreover, in this search strategy, it was not including the names or acronyms of specific pain questionnaires. Thus, although some articles might have used questionnaires, such as ODI, VAS, and SNQ, concomitantly with other questionnaires, it was chosen not to specify them in the searches to broaden the results. Therefore, this choice was considered a limitation of the search strategy.

Considered as strengths of this review the fact that this article is the first that summarizes instruments that assess BP specifically for athletes. Furthermore, this review selected articles in all languages and without fixing a publication date, and these criteria are relevant because they do not limit the ability to identify articles in the literature. Lastly, the search strategy was conducted in five recognized databases (Embase, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, and Scopus).

Another strength of this review is that it presents a protocol previously structured by the same group of researchers, which synthesizes the authors’ ideas for carrying out a systematic review. Moreover, this review reduces controversies in the literature, since it does not result from the number of studies in favor of a particular intervention, but form the sum of several case studies, identified and published in specific databases that are widely used in the literature. Finally, another important positive element to be highlighted is the fact that this review directs future studies to different areas of activity, it can be used as a tool to contribute to research in medicine, physiotherapy, sport, among others.

Future studies should develop instruments or a standard questionnaire [13, 118] assessing the factors associated with back and neck pain and even analyze the changes in body posture focusing on activities of daily living. Questionnaires examining these factors may promote a more robust and detailed data collection. Here are some recommendations for creating a new instrument for assessing BP in athletes in the following text.

Initially, researchers should establish the conceptual framework of what they intend to measure, in addition to defining the objectives of the questionnaire and the study population by thoroughly reading books, articles, and other materials [31] related to BP and athletes. The items should subsequently be derived from a central objective [31] and associated with the sporting activities of the athletes. These items may gather information related to several factors, such as the sport, training or competition volume, trunk rotation or flexion movements, repetitive movements, other efforts, skill-related fitness components, and rest. It is also essential to list information on behavioral care, posture and back or neck pain. These items can be either selected from items of previous instruments and adapted or created.

Subsequently, the individual content of each item should be evaluated by content validation, thereby assessing the text and improving the structure of the questionnaire. At the end, a pre-test should be performed before assessing the reliability of the questionnaire. Validity is the extent to which an instrument measures the construct it intends to measure [119], and reliability is related to the coherence and consistency of the results and to the confidence that the test provides when measuring phenomena [120, 121]. Therefore, these measurement properties should be assessed when designing questionnaires. Finally, based on the results identified in this review, if future research wants to investigate BP in athletes, it is suggested the Athlete Disability Index because it contains 12 general questions about pain, and its results are broader compared to other instruments such as the Micheli Functional Scale.

5 Conclusion

This review identified specific questionnaires for assessing BP and studies that validated specific questionnaires for athletes. Based on this systematic review, two questionnaire validation articles were classified with a high methodological quality. These findings highlight the importance of a more careful evaluation in selecting a questionnaire and, once selected, in avoiding methodological shortcomings. Therefore, researchers should select the instrument according to their research objective and comply with processes, such as validity and reliability.

Even though the results demonstrate the lack of certain essential elements for good evaluation of research methodology, the importance of each instrument and their high correlation with other instruments considered “gold standards” should be emphasized. To future readers and researchers in the area, it is suggested new research articles and instruments, because the effectiveness of treatment and its follow-up depend on a reliable and valid pain assessment and measurement. It is suggested that more precise and reliable tools for assessing pain in this population be developed in the future and that these tools can be used to make the assessment of back pain more precise and standardized.

Supporting information

S1 Annex. Search strategies used by the respective database.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293333.s001

(DOCX)

S1 Checklist. PRISMA 2020 checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293333.s002

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to show their gratitude to Instituto Federal Goiano, Universidade Federal de Goiás and the Research Group on Child and Adolescent Health (www.gpsaca.com.br (accessed on 04 October 2023)) for the support.

References

  1. 1. Raja SN, Carr DB, Cohen M, Finnerup NB, Flor H, Gibson S, et al. The revised International Association for the Study of Pain definition of pain: concepts, challenges, and compromises. Pain. 2020;161(9):1976–82. pmid:32694387
  2. 2. Arruda GAd, Coledam DHC, Oliveira ARd, Neri FdS, Greca JPdA, Cardoso JRJRPdP. Proposal and test-retest reliability of a scale for cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine pain in brazilian young people. Revista Paulista de Pediatria. 2019;37(4):450–7. pmid:30624540
  3. 3. Witwit WA, Kovac P, Sward A, Agnvall C, Todd C, Thoreson O, et al. Disc degeneration on MRI is more prevalent in young elite skiers compared to controls. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2018;26(1):325–32. pmid:28409199
  4. 4. Beynon AM, Hebert JJ, Lebouef-Yde C, Walker BFJC, therapies m. Potential risk factors and triggers for back pain in children and young adults. A scoping review, part II: unclear or mixed types of back pain. Chiropractic & manual therapies. 2019;27(1):1–12.
  5. 5. Beynon AM, Hebert JJ, Hodgetts CJ, Boulos LM, Walker BFJESJ. Chronic physical illnesses, mental health disorders, and psychological features as potential risk factors for back pain from childhood to young adulthood: A systematic review with meta-analysis. European Spine Journal. 2020;29(3):480–96. pmid:31907659
  6. 6. Junge T, Wedderkopp N, Boyle E, Kjaer PJC, therapies m. The natural course of low back pain from childhood to young adulthood–a systematic review. Chiropractic & manual therapies. 2019;27(1):1–10.
  7. 7. Noll M, Wedderkopp N, Mendonça CR, Kjaer PJSr. Motor performance and back pain in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol. Systematic reviews. 2020;9(1):1–6.
  8. 8. Mizoguchi Y, Akasaka K, Otsudo T, Hall TJM. Physical function characteristics in Japanese high school volleyball players with low back pain: A case-controlled study. Medicine. 2020;99(46). pmid:33181694
  9. 9. Wernli K, Tan J-S, O’Sullivan P, Smith A, Campbell A, Kent PJjoo, et al. Does movement change when low back pain changes? A systematic review. 2020;50(12):664–70.
  10. 10. Zamani E, Kordi R, Nourian R, Noorian N, Memari AH, Shariati M. Low back pain functional disability in athletes; Conceptualization and initial development of a questionnaire. Asian Journal of Sports Medicine. 2014;5(4).
  11. 11. Tunås P, Nilstad A, Myklebust G. Low back pain in female elite football and handball players compared with an active control group. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2015;23(9):2540–7. pmid:24839041
  12. 12. Lukas R, German C. Back pain and core strength in elite cycling. Schweiz Z Med Traumatol,. 2019;67:44–8.
  13. 13. Wilson F, Ardern CL, Hartvigsen J, Dane K, Trompeter K, Trease L, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for back pain in sports: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Sports Medicine 2020. pmid:33077481
  14. 14. Fett D, Trompeter K, Platen P. Back pain in elite sports: A cross-sectional study on 1114 athletes. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(6). pmid:28662110
  15. 15. Legault ÉP, Descarreaux M, Cantin VJBmd. Musculoskeletal symptoms in an adolescent athlete population: a comparative study. BMC musculoskeletal disorders. 2015;16(1):1–9.
  16. 16. Hangai M, Kaneoka K, Okubo Y, Miyakawa S, Hinotsu S, Mukai N, et al. Relationship between low back pain and competitive sports activities during youth. The American journal of sports medicine. 2010;38(4):791–6. pmid:20051500
  17. 17. Yabe Y, Hagiwara Y, Sekiguchi T, Momma H, Tsuchiya M, Kanazawa K, et al. Low Back Pain in Young Sports Players: A Cross-sectional Study in Japan. Spine. 2021;46(17):1154–9. pmid:34384092
  18. 18. Wippert PM, Puschmann AK, Arampatzis A, Schiltenwolf M, Mayer F. Diagnosis of psychosocial risk factors in prevention of low back pain in athletes (MiSpEx). Open Sport and Exercise Medicine. 2017;3(1). pmid:29259814
  19. 19. Moradi V, Memari AH, ShayestehFar M, Kordi R. Low Back Pain in Athletes Is Associated with General and Sport Specific Risk Factors: A Comprehensive Review of Longitudinal Studies. Rehabilitation research and practice. 2015;2015:850184. pmid:26783465
  20. 20. Yabe Y, Hagiwara Y, Sekiguchi T, Momma H, Tsuchiya M, Kanazawa K, et al. Low Back Pain in School-Aged Martial Arts Athletes in Japan: A Comparison among Judo, Kendo, and Karate. The Tohoku journal of experimental medicine. 2020;251(4):295–301. pmid:32759555
  21. 21. Schulz SS, Lenz K, Büttner-Janz KJEsj. Severe back pain in elite athletes: a cross-sectional study on 929 top athletes of Germany. European spine journal. 2016;25(4):1204–10. pmid:26337926
  22. 22. Noormohammadpour P, Khezri AH, Farahbakhsh F, Mansournia MA, Smuck M, Kordi R. Reliability and Validity of Athletes Disability Index Questionnaire. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine. 2018;28(2):159–67. pmid:28107217
  23. 23. Trompeter K, Fett D, Platen P. Prevalence of Back Pain in Sports: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Sports Med. 2017;47(6):1183–207. pmid:28035587
  24. 24. Sapolnik R, Almeida P, Souza MJPm. Memória da dor em crianças oncológicas. Pediatr mod. 2009:146–54.
  25. 25. Turk DC, Melzack R. Handbook of pain assessment: Guilford Press; 2011.
  26. 26. Candotti CT, Schmit EFD, Pivotto LR, Raupp EG, Noll M, Vieira A, et al. Back pain and body posture evaluation instrument for adults: expansion and reproducibility. Pain Management Nursing. 2018;19(4):415–23. pmid:29191701
  27. 27. Thomas DB, Oenning NSX, Goulart BNGdJRC. Essential aspects in the design of data collection instruments in primary health research. Revista CEFAC. 2018;20(5):657–64.
  28. 28. Chiarotto A, Maxwell LJ, Ostelo RW, Boers M, Tugwell P, Terwee CBJTjop. Measurement properties of visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale, and pain severity subscale of the brief pain inventory in patients with low back pain: a systematic review. 2019;20(3):245–63.
  29. 29. Shafshak TS, Elnemr RJJJoCR. The visual analogue scale versus numerical rating scale in measuring pain severity and predicting disability in low back pain. 2021;27(7):282–5.
  30. 30. Noble B, Clark D, Meldrum M, Ten Have H, Seymour J, Winslow M, et al. The measurement of pain, 1945–2000. 2005;29(1):14–21.
  31. 31. Silva de Souza GH, Coelho JAPdM, Lima NC, de Albuquerque Silva J, Esteves GGLJAEeP. Planejamento de Questionários: Unificando conhecimentos em Pesquisa de Mercado e Psicometria. Administração: Ensino e Pesquisa. 2021;22(1).
  32. 32. Geuens M, De Pelsmacker PJJoA. Planning and conducting experimental advertising research and questionnaire design. Journal of Advertising. 2017;46(1):83–100.
  33. 33. Pilz B, Vasconcelos RA, Teixeira PP, Mello W, Marcondes FB, Hill JC, et al. Construct and discriminant validity of STarT back screening tool–Brazilian version. Brazilian journal of physical therapy. 2017;21(1):69–73. pmid:28442077
  34. 34. Pierobon A, Policastro PO, Soliño S, Darlow B, Andreu M, Novoa GA, et al. Spanish translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Argentine version of the Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire. Musculoskeletal Science and Practice. 2020;46:102125. pmid:32217271
  35. 35. Azevedo VD, Silva RMF, Borges SCdC, Fernandes MdSV, Miñana-Signes V, Monfort-Pañego M, et al. Evaluation Instruments for Assessing Back Pain in Athletes: A Systematic Review Protocol. Healthcare (Basel). 2020;8(4):574. pmid:33561044
  36. 36. d’Hemecourt PA, Zurakowski D, d’Hemecourt CA, Curtis C, Ugrinow V, Deriu L, et al. Validation of a New Instrument for Evaluating Low Back Pain in the Young Athlete. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine. 2012;22(3):244–8. pmid:22382433
  37. 37. Naghdi S, Nakhostin Ansari N, Yazdanpanah M, Feise RJ, Fakhari Z. The validity and reliability of the functional rating index for evaluating low back pain in athletes. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. 2015;25(6):840–5. pmid:25809588
  38. 38. Mitsalina D, Tomoliyus T, Rahmatullah MI, Nanda FA, Ali MJAJoPE, Sport, Health, Recreation. Content Validation Instrument Rating Factors Contributing to Low Back Pain in Sports. ACTIVE: Journal of Physical Education, Sport, Health. 2021;10(2):83–7.
  39. 39. Farahbakhsh F, Akbari-Fakhrabadi M, Shariat A, Clel , JA , Farahbakhsh F, et al. Neck pain and low back pain in relation to functional disability in different sport activities. Journal of Exercise Rehabilitation. 2018;14(3):509–15. pmid:30018941
  40. 40. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic reviews. 2015;4(1):1–9. pmid:25554246
  41. 41. McKinney J, Velghe J, Fee J, Isserow S, Drezner JAJTAJoC. Defining athletes and exercisers. The American Journal of Cardiology; 2019. p. 532–5. pmid:30503799
  42. 42. Noll M, de Mendonça CR, de Souza Rosa LP, Silveira EAJNj. Determinants of eating patterns and nutrient intake among adolescent athletes: A systematic review. Nutrition journal. 2017;16(1):1–11.
  43. 43. Eime RM, Young JA, Harvey JT, Charity MJ, Payne WRJIjobn, activity p. A systematic review of the psychological and social benefits of participation in sport for children and adolescents: informing development of a conceptual model of health through sport. International journal of behavioral nutrition. 2013;10(1):1–21. pmid:23945179
  44. 44. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid AJSr. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic reviews. 2016;5(1):1–10. pmid:27919275
  45. 45. Brink Y, Louw QAJJoeicp. Clinical instruments: reliability and validity critical appraisal. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice. 2012;18(6):1126–32. pmid:21689217
  46. 46. Cohen L, Kobayashi S, Simic M, Dennis S, Refshauge K, Pappas EJS, et al. Non-radiographic methods of measuring global sagittal balance: a systematic review. Scoliosis. 2017;12(1):1–12. pmid:29026895
  47. 47. Barrett E, McCreesh K, Lewis JJMt. Reliability and validity of non-radiographic methods of thoracic kyphosis measurement: a systematic review. Manual therapy. 2014;19(1):10–7. pmid:24246907
  48. 48. Sutton JH, Guin PD, Theiss SM. Acute lumbar spondylolysis in intercollegiate athletes.. Clinical Spine Surgery. Journal of Spinal Disorders and Techniques. 2012;25(8):422–5.
  49. 49. Müller J, Müller S, Stoll J, Fröhlich K, Otto C, Mayer F. Back pain prevalence in adolescent athletes. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. 2017;27(4):448–54. pmid:26892028
  50. 50. Sweeney EA, Potter MN, MacDonald JP, Howell DR. Low back pain in female adolescent gymnasts and functional pain scales. Physical Therapy in Sport. 2019;38:66–70. pmid:31055060
  51. 51. Tsai YS, Sell TC, Smoliga JM, Myers JB, Learman KE, Lephart SM. A comparison of physical characteristics and swing mechanics between golfers with and without a history of low back pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther.40(7):430–8. pmid:20592479
  52. 52. Kraft CN, Scharfstädt A, Yong M, Westhoff B, Urban N, Falkenhausen MV, et al. Correlation of back pain and magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in elite horse vaulters. Sportverletzung Sportschaden. 2007;21(3):142–7.
  53. 53. Koutras C, Buecking B, Jaeger M, Ruchholtz S, Heep H. Musculoskeletal injuries in auto racing: a retrospective study of 137 drivers. Phys Sportsmed.42(4):80–6. pmid:25419891
  54. 54. Heidari J, Mierswa T, Hasenbring M, Kleinert J, Levenig C, Ott I, et al. Low back pain in athletes and non-athletes: a group comparison of basic pain parameters and impact on sports activity. Sport Sciences for Health. 2016;12(3):297–306.
  55. 55. Heidari J, Mierswa T, Kleinert J, Ott I, Levenig C, Hasenbring M, et al. Parameters of low back pain chronicity among athletes: Associations with physical and mental stress. Physical Therapy in Sport. 2016;21:31–7. pmid:27428532
  56. 56. Mueller S, Mueller J, Stoll J, Prieske O, Cassel M, Mayer F. Incidence of back pain in adolescent athletes: a prospective study. BMC Sports Science, Medicine & Rehabilitation. 2016;8:1–5. pmid:27980790
  57. 57. Mueller S, Mueller J, Stoll J, Cassel M, Hirschmüller A, Mayer F. Back Pain in Adolescent Athletes: Results of a Biomechanical Screening. Sports Med Int Open. 2017;1(1):E16–e22. pmid:30539081
  58. 58. Trompeter K, Fett D, Brüggemann GP, Platen P. Prevalence of back pain in elite athletes. German Journal of Sports Medicine/Deutsche Zeitschrift fur Sportmedizin. 2018;69(7):240–5.
  59. 59. Gajsar H, Titze C, Levenig C, Kellmann M, Heidari J, Kleinert J, et al. Psychological pain responses in athletes and non-athletes with low back pain: Avoidance and endurance matter. European Journal of Pain. 2019;23(9):1649–62. pmid:31220382
  60. 60. Trompeter K, Fett D, Platen P. Back Pain in Rowers: A Cross-sectional Study on Prevalence, Pain Characteristics and Risk Factors. 2019;33(1):51–9.
  61. 61. Sharma S, Akmal S, Sharma S. Comparison of two manual therapy approaches combined with exercise on pain, strength and electromyographic muscle activity in athletes with subacute mechanical low back pain. Sport Sciences for Health. 2021.
  62. 62. Fett D, Trompeter K, Platen PJPo. Prevalence of back pain in a group of elite athletes exposed to repetitive overhead activity. PloS one. 2019;14(1):e0210429. pmid:30677044
  63. 63. Baranto A, Hellström M, Cederlund CG, Nyman R, Swärd L. Back pain and MRI changes in the thoraco-lumbar spine of top athletes in four different sports: a 15-year follow-up study. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2009;17(9):1125–34. pmid:19305975
  64. 64. Alricsson M, Björklund G, Cronholm M, Olsson O, Viklund P, Svantesson U. Spinal alignment, mobility of the hip and thoracic spine and prevalence of low back pain in young elite cross-country skiers. Exerc Rehabil. 2016;12(1):21–8. pmid:26933656
  65. 65. Thoreson O, Kovac P, Swärd A, Agnvall C, Todd C, Baranto A. Back pain and MRI changes in the thoraco-lumbar spine of young elite Mogul skiers. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. 2017;27(9):983–9.
  66. 66. Todd C, Aminoff AS, Agnvall C, Thoreson O, Swärd L, Karlsson J, et al. No difference in prevalence of spine and hip pain in young Elite skiers. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2018;26(7):1959–65. pmid:29204863
  67. 67. Naghdi S, Ansari NN, ShamsSalehi S, Feise RJ, Entezary E. Validation of the functional rating index for the assessment of athletes with neck pain. World Journal of Orthopaedics. 2016;7(8):507–12. pmid:27622152
  68. 68. Naghdi S, Ansari NN, Ashrafi H, Entezary E, Ansari AN, Olyaei G. Cross-cultural adaptation of the micheli functional scale to persian language for evaluation of low back pain in the young athletes. Asian Journal of Sports Medicine. 2015;6(4). pmid:26715974
  69. 69. Kazemkhani N, ShahAli S, Shanbehzadeh S. Comparison of Isometric Strength of the Trunk and Hip Muscle Groups in Female Athletes with and without Low Back Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2022;36:62. pmid:36128283
  70. 70. Bahr R, Andersen SO, Løken S, Fossan B, Hansen T, Holme I. Low back pain among endurance athletes with and without specific back loading—a cross-sectional survey of cross-country skiers, rowers, orienteerers, and nonathletic controls. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2004;29(4):449–54. pmid:15094542
  71. 71. Levenig CG, Kellmann M, Kleinert J, Belz J, Hesselmann T, Heidari J, et al. Body Image in Athletes and Nonathletes With Low Back Pain: Avoidance-Endurance-Related Subgroups and Sports Status Play a Role. Sport Rehabil. 2020:1–8. pmid:32335530
  72. 72. Błach W, Klimek B, Rydzik Ł, Ruzbarsky P, Czarny W, Raś I, et al. Nonspecific Low Back Pain among Kyokushin Karate Practitioners. Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania). 2020;57(1). pmid:33396855
  73. 73. Zaworski K, Gawlik K, Krȩgiel-Rosiak A, Baj-Korpak J. The effect of motor control training according to the Kinetic Control concept on the back pain of female football players. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil. 2021;34(5):757–65. pmid:33896810
  74. 74. Sędek K, Truszczyńska-Baszak A, Cygańska AK, Drzał-Grabiec J. Back pain and body posture of non-professional Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu practitioners. PeerJ. 2022;10:e12838. pmid:35261817
  75. 75. Corkery MB, O’Rourke B, Viola S, Yen SC, Rigby J, Singer K, et al. An exploratory examination of the association between altered lumbar motor control, joint mobility and low back pain in athletes. Asian journal of sports medicine. 2014;5(4). pmid:25741418
  76. 76. Hilgersom NFJ, Kuilman MC, Van Hilst J, Kuijer PPFM, Frings-Dresen MHW. Low back pain among young selected skaters: Prevalence and self-reported associated factors. Sport en Geneeskunde. 2012;45(1):12–7.
  77. 77. van Hilst J, Hilgersom NFJ, Kuilman MC, Kuijer PPFM, Frings-Dresen MHW. Low back pain in young elite field hockey players, football players and speed skaters: Prevalence and risk factors. Journal of Back & Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation. 2015;28(1):67–73. pmid:24968798
  78. 78. Deckers I, De Bruyne C, Roussel N, Truijen S, Minguet P, Lewis V, et al. Assessing the sport-specific and functional characteristics of back pain in horse riders. Comparative Exercise Physiology. 2021.
  79. 79. Jonasson P, Halldin K, Karlsson J, Thoreson O, Hvannberg J, Swärd L, et al. Prevalence of joint-related pain in the extremities and spine in five groups of top athletes. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2011;19(9):1540–6. pmid:21559845
  80. 80. Pasanen K, Rossi M, Parkkari J, Kannus P, Heinonen A, Tokola K, et al. Low Back Pain in Young Basketball and Floorball Players. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine. 2016;26(5):376–80. pmid:26513389
  81. 81. Rossi MK, Pasanen K, Heinonen A, Myklebust G, Kannus P, Kujala UM, et al. Incidence and risk factors for back pain in young floorball and basketball players: A Prospective study. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. 2018;28(11):2407–15. pmid:29883001
  82. 82. Cole MH, Grimshaw PN. The crunch factor’s role in golf-related low back pain. Spine 14(5):799–807. pmid:24291405
  83. 83. Ng L, Cañeiro JP, Campbell A, Smith A, Burnett A, O’Sullivan P. Cognitive functional approach to manage low back pain in male adolescent rowers: a randomised controlled trial. British journal of sports medicine.49(17):1125–31. pmid:25618890
  84. 84. Cejudo A, Moreno-Alcaraz VJ, Izzo R, Santonja-Medina F, de Baranda PS. External and total hip rotation ranges of motion predispose to low back pain in elite Spanish inline hockey players. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;17(13):1–17. pmid:32640586
  85. 85. Marugán-Rubio D, Chicharro JL, Becerro-de-Bengoa-Vallejo R, Losa-Iglesias ME, Rodríguez-Sanz D, Vicente-Campos D, et al. Effectiveness of Ultrasonography Visual Biofeedback of the Diaphragm in Conjunction with Inspiratory Muscle Training on Muscle Thickness, Respiratory Pressures, Pain, Disability, Quality of Life and Pulmonary Function in Athletes with Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Clin Med. 2022;11(15). pmid:35893409
  86. 86. Abdelraouf OR, Abdel-aziem AA. The relationship between core endurance and back dysfunction in collegiate male athletes with and without nonspecific low back pain. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. 2016;11(3):337–44. pmid:27274419
  87. 87. John Kachanathu S, Zakaria AR, Sahni A, Jaiswal P. Chronic low back pain in fast bowlers a comparative study of core spinal stabilization and conventional exercises. Journal of Physical Therapy Science. 2012;24(9):821–5.
  88. 88. Kums T, Ereline J, Veldre G, Gapeyeva H, Pääsuke M, Vain A. Markers for monitoring adaptive peculiarity of the musculoskeletal system in rhythmic gymnasts with non-specific low back pain. Gazzetta Medica Italiana Archivio per le Scienze Mediche. 2017;176(5):237–46.
  89. 89. Madić D, Obradović B, Golik-Perić D, Marinković D, Trajković N, Gojković Z. The isokinetic strength profile of semi-professional soccer players according to low back pain. Journal of Back & Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation. 2020;33(3):501–6. pmid:31524139
  90. 90. Bussey MD, Kennedy JE, Kennedy G. Gluteus medius coactivation response in field hockey players with and without low back pain. Physical Therapy in Sport. 2016;17:24–9. pmid:26481514
  91. 91. Honcharov A, Ruban L, Litovchenko A, Okun D, Turchinov A. Physical therapy for old-timer athletes with chronic back pain. Physiotherapy Quarterly. 2020;28(2):20–4.
  92. 92. Zhou W, Fu Z. Adoption of bio-image technology on rehabilitation intervention of sports injury of golf. Journal of Supercomputing. 2021.
  93. 93. Külling FA, Florianz H, Reepschläger B, Gasser J, Jost B, Lajtai G. High Prevalence of Disc Degeneration and Spondylolysis in the Lumbar Spine of Professional Beach Volleyball Players. Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine. 2014;2(4):2325967114528862. pmid:26535316
  94. 94. Noll M, Silveira EA, Avelar ISdJPO. Evaluation of factors associated with severe and frequent back pain in high school athletes. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0171978. pmid:28222141
  95. 95. Pavana, K RR, R P. Screening for Neck and Upper Limb Injuries among Intercollegeate Volleyball Players in Selected Colleges of Bengaluru. Indian Journal of Physiotherapy & Occupational Therapy. 2022;16(3):117–21.
    • 96. Hanrahan S, Van Lunen BL, Tamburello M, Walker ML. The short-term effects of joint mobilizations on acute mechanical low back dysfunction in collegiate athletes. Journal of Athletic Training. 2005;40(2):88–93. pmid:15970954
    • 97. Clay H, Mansell J, Tierney R. Association between rowing injuries and the functional movement screen™ in female collegiate division i rowers. International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy. 2016;11(3):345–9.
    • 98. Clarsen B, Krosshaug T, Bahr R. Overuse injuries in professional road cyclists. Am J Sports Med.38(12):2494–501. pmid:20847225
    • 99. Mousavi SJ, Parnianpour M, Mehdian H, Montazeri A, Mobini BJS. The Oswestry disability index, the Roland-Morris disability questionnaire, and the Quebec back pain disability scale: translation and validation studies of the Iranian versions. Spine. 2006;31(14):E454–E9. pmid:16778675
    • 100. Fairbank JC, Pynsent PB. The Oswestry Disability Index. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(22):2940–52; discussion 52. pmid:11074683
    • 101. Kuorinka I, Jonsson B, Kilbom A, Vinterberg H, Biering-Sørensen F, Andersson G, et al. Standardised Nordic questionnaires for the analysis of musculoskeletal symptoms. Applied ergonomics. 1987;18(3):233–7. pmid:15676628
    • 102. Melzack R. The short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire. Pain. 1987;30(2):191–7. pmid:3670870
    • 103. Melzack R. The McGill Pain Questionnaire: major properties and scoring methods. Pain. 1975;1(3):277–99. pmid:1235985
    • 104. Von Korff M, Ormel J, Keefe FJ, Dworkin SF. Grading the severity of chronic pain. Pain. 1992;50(2):133–49. pmid:1408309
    • 105. Kropp P. Psychologische Schmerzdiagnostik bei Kindern. Monatsschrift Kinderheilkunde. 2003;151(10):1075–89.
    • 106. Klasen BW, Hallner D, Schaub C, Willburger R, Hasenbring M. Validation and reliability of the German version of the Chronic Pain Grade questionnaire in primary care back pain patients. Psychosoc Med. 2004;1. pmid:19742049
    • 107. Roland M, Fairbank JJS. The Roland–Morris disability questionnaire and the Oswestry disability questionnaire. Spine. 2000;25(24):3115–24. pmid:11124727
    • 108. Heneweer H, van Woudenberg NJ, van Genderen F, Vanhees L, Wittink H. Measuring psychosocial variables in patients with (sub) acute low back pain complaints, at risk for chronicity: a validation study of the Acute Low Back Pain Screening Questionnaire-Dutch Language Version. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(4):447–52. pmid:20110835
    • 109. Noll M, Candotti CT, Vieira A, Loss JFJIJoPH. Back pain and body posture evaluation instrument (BackPEI): development, content validation and reproducibility. International Journal of Public Health. 2013;58(4):565–72. pmid:23275945
    • 110. Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Riddle DLJS. Development and initial validation of the back pain functional scale. 2000;25(16):2095–102.
    • 111. Menke MJ, Feise RJJMSM. Functional rating index: literature review. Medical Science Monitor. 2010;16(2):RA25-RA36. pmid:20110929
    • 112. Kirkham JJ, Gargon E, Clarke M, Williamson PRJT. Can a core outcome set improve the quality of systematic reviews?–a survey of the Co-ordinating Editors of Cochrane Review Groups. Trials. 2013;14(1):1–5. pmid:23339751
    • 113. Grotle M, Brox JI, Vøllestad NKJS. Functional status and disability questionnaires: what do they assess?: a systematic review of back-specific outcome questionnaires. 2005;30(1):130–40.
    • 114. Wiitavaara B, Heiden MJD, rehabilitation. Content and psychometric evaluations of questionnaires for assessing physical function in people with low back disorders. A systematic review of the literature. Disability rehabilitation research practice. 2020;42(2):163–72.
    • 115. Leahy E, Davidson M, Benjamin D, Wajswelner HJMt. Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) questionnaires for people with pain in any spine region. A systematic review. 2016;22:22–30.
    • 116. Schellingerhout JM, Verhagen AP, Heymans MW, Koes BW, Henrica C, Terwee CBJQoLR. Measurement properties of disease-specific questionnaires in patients with neck pain: a systematic review. Quality of Life Research. 2012;21(4):659–70.
    • 117. Schellingerhout JM, Heymans MW, Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, Koes BW, Terwee CBJBMRM. Measurement properties of translated versions of neck-specific questionnaires: a systematic review. 2011;11(1):1–14.
    • 118. Wilson F, Ardern CL, Hartvigsen J, Dane K, Trompeter K, Trease L, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for back pain in sports: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Journal of Sports Medicine. 2021;55(11):601–7.
    • 119. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. 2010;63(7):737–45.
    • 120. Association AER. Report and recommendations for the reauthorization of the institute of education sciences: American Educational Research Association; 2011.
    • 121. Cunha CM, de Almeida Neto OP, Stackfleth RSJRdAàS. Principais métodos de avaliação psicométrica da confiabilidade de instrumentos de medida. 2016;14(49):98–103.