Scoping review identifies standardized measures for motor control and movement quality in low back pain, suggesting gaps in current assessments.
OBJECTIVE: To identify standardized clinical measures for lumbopelvic motor control and movement quality in adults with low back pain (LBP) and classify the components assessed using the recently developed Motor Control & Movement Quality (MC&MQ)-Framework 52 . DESIGN: Scoping Review following JBI methodology and reported according to the Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews reporting guidelines. LITERATURE SEARCH: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Embase and Scopus were searched using a three-step strategy (last search: 30.03.26). STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies reported the index publication of a standardized clinical measure of lumbopelvic motor control or movement quality in adults with chronic or recurrent LBP, included at least one psychometric property, used standardized protocols with interpretable scoring, and assessed active movement. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and applied the MC&MQ-Framework 52 to map test items to framework-defined motor control functions and movement quality domains. RESULTS: Thirty-four measures across 22 studies met inclusion criteria. Most (n = 29) were single-task measures; five were composite. The majority assessed the motor control function ‘control of simple voluntary movements’, with other functions less frequently represented (e.g. ‘involuntary movement reaction functions’, 6%; ‘proprioceptive functions’, 0%). Measures primarily captured the movement quality domains accuracy (65%) and stability (65%), whereas variability, speed, adaptability, flexibility, and smoothness were rarely addressed (6-21%). CONCLUSION: Current standardized clinical measures focus on evaluating the control of simple voluntary movements and capture only a limited subset of motor control and movement quality constructs. Substantial conceptual and measurement gaps remain. Targeted development of measures addressing underrepresented constructs may support, among other purposes, more accurate subgrouping in LBP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pflügler et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: