The effect of dual-task conditions on postural control in adults with low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: Dual-task conditions, which involve performing two tasks simultaneously, may exacerbate pain and further impair daily functioning in individuals with low back pain (LBP). Understanding the effects of dual-task conditions on postural control in patients with LBP is crucial for the development of effective rehabilitation programs. Our objective was to investigate the impact of dual-task conditions on postural control in individuals with LBP compared to those without LBP.

Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of Medline via PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases, with no language restrictions, from inception to January 1, 2023. The primary outcome measures of the study were velocity, area, amplitude, phase plane portrait, and path/sway length of the center of pressure (CoP). Standardized mean difference (SMD) effect sizes were calculated, and the quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS).

Results: From 196 studies, five involving 242 adults (≥ 18 years) met the inclusion criteria. Three studies were rated as high quality, while two were deemed moderate. In the included studies, 140 participants had non-specific LBP, while 102 participants did not report any symptoms, with mean ages of 36.68 (± 14.21) and 36.35 (± 15.39) years, respectively. Three studies had both genders, one exclusively included females, and one did not specify gender. Meta-analyses of primary outcomes revealed no significant differences in postural control between patients with LBP and pain-free controls during both easy and difficult postural tasks and cognitive load for velocity (easy: SMD - 0.09, 95% CI - 0.91 to 0.74; difficult: SMD 0.12, 95% CI - 0.67 to 0.91), area (easy: SMD 0.82, 95% CI - 2.99 to 4.62; difficult: SMD 0.14, 95% CI - 2.62 to 2.89), phase plane (easy: SMD - 0.59, 95% CI - 1.19 to 0.02; difficult: SMD - 0.18, 95% CI - 0.77 to 0.42), path/sway length (easy: SMD - 0.18, 95% CI - 0.77 to 0.42; difficult: SMD - 0.14, 95% CI - 0.84 to 0.55), and amplitude (easy: SMD 0.89, 95% CI - 1.62 to 3.39; difficult: SMD 1.31, 95% CI - 1.48 to 4.10).

Conclusions: The current evidence suggests that there are no significant differences in postural control parameters during dual-task conditions between individuals with non-specific LBP and pain-free subjects. However, due to the limited number of available studies, significant publication bias, and considerable statistical heterogeneity, definitive conclusions cannot be drawn. Therefore, further research comprising high-quality studies with larger sample sizes is necessary to obtain conclusive results. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42022359263.

Keywords: Center of pressure; Dual task; Low back pain; Postural balance; Systematic review.

Fig. 1

Flowchart of study selection. Flowchart adapted from the PRISMA 2020 statement

Fig. 2

Forest plots for meta-analysis of velocity. A Easy postural control task and cognitive load, B difficult postural control task and cognitive load

Fig. 3

Forest plots for meta-analysis of area. A Easy postural control task and cognitive load, B difficult postural control task and cognitive load

Fig. 4

Forest plots for meta-analysis of path/sway length. A Easy postural control task and cognitive load, B difficult postural control task and cognitive load

Fig. 5

Forest plots for meta-analysis of amplitude. A Easy postural control task and cognitive load, B difficult postural control task and cognitive load