@article{NiedererVogtWippertetal.2016,
  author    = {Niederer, Daniel and Vogt, Lutz and Wippert, Pia-Maria and Puschmann, Anne-Katrin and Pfeifer, Ann-Christin and Schiltenwolf, Marcus and Banzer, Winfried and Mayer, Frank},
  title     = {Medicine in spine exercise (MiSpEx) for nonspecific low back pain patients: study protocol for a multicentre, single-blind randomized controlled trial},
  series = {Trials},
  volume    = {17},
  journal   = {Trials},
  publisher = {BioMed Central},
  address   = {London},
  issn      = {1745-6215},
  doi       = {10.1186/s13063-016-1645-1},
  pages     = {9},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Background: Arising from the relevance of sensorimotor training in the therapy of nonspecific low back pain patients and from the value of individualized therapy, the present trial aims to test the feasibility and efficacy of individualized sensorimotor training interventions in patients suffering from nonspecific low back pain. Methods and study design: A multicentre, single-blind two-armed randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effects of a 12-week (3 weeks supervised centre-based and 9 weeks home-based) individualized sensorimotor exercise program is performed. The control group stays inactive during this period. Outcomes are pain, and pain-associated function as well as motor function in adults with nonspecific low back pain. Each participant is scheduled to five measurement dates: baseline (M1), following centre-based training (M2), following home-based training (M3) and at two follow-up time points 6 months (M4) and 12 months (M5) after M1. All investigations and the assessment of the primary and secondary outcomes are performed in a standardized order: questionnaires - clinical examination biomechanics (motor function). Subsequent statistical procedures are executed after the examination of underlying assumptions for parametric or rather non-parametric testing. Discussion: The results and practical relevance of the study will be of clinical and practical relevance not only for researchers and policy makers but also for the general population suffering from nonspecific low back pain.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BontrupTaylorFliesseretal.2019,
  author    = {Bontrup, Carolin and Taylor, William R. and Fliesser, Michael and Visscher, Rosa and Green, Tamara and Wippert, Pia-Maria and Zemp, Roland},
  title     = {Low back pain and its relationship with sitting behaviour among sedentary office workers},
  series = {Applied ergonomics : human factors in technology and society},
  volume    = {81},
  journal   = {Applied ergonomics : human factors in technology and society},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0003-6870},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.apergo.2019.102894},
  pages     = {8},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {The relationships between sedentary lifestyle, sitting behaviour, and low back pain (LBP) remain controversial. In this study, we investigated the relationship between back pain and occupational sitting habits in 64 call-centre employees. A textile pressure mat was used to evaluate and parameterise sitting behaviour over a total of 400 h, while pain questionnaires evaluated acute and chronic LBP. Seventy-five percent of the participants reported some level of either chronic or acute back pain. Individuals with chronic LBP demonstrated a possible trend (t-test not significant) towards more static sitting behaviour compared to their pain-free counterparts. Furthermore, a greater association was found between sitting behaviour and chronic LBP than for acute pain/disability, which is plausibly due to a greater awareness of pain-free sitting positions in individuals with chronic pain compared to those affected by acute pain.},
  language  = {en}
}