PreGrad.bib

@book{sundhed,
	edition = {2.0},
	title = {https://sundhedsstyrelsen.dk/da/sygdom-og-behandling/{\textasciitilde}/media/00C6825B11BD46F9B064536C6E7DFBA0.ashx},
	volume = {2015},
	isbn = {978-87-7104-655-7},
	language = {Dansj},
	publisher = {Statens Institut for Folke- sundhed, Syddansk Universitet},
	author = {Flachs, Esben and Bjerrum Koch, Mette and Louise, Eriksen and Ryd, Julie and Dibba, Emily and Skov-Ettrup, Lise and Juel, Knud},
	year = {978}
}

@article{osullivan,
	title = {Unraveling the {Complexity} of {Low} {Back} {Pain}},
	volume = {46},
	issn = {1938-1344},
	doi = {10.2519/jospt.2016.0609},
	abstract = {Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide. Various approaches to diagnose and manage LBP have arisen, leading to an exponential increase in health care costs. Paradoxically, this trend has been associated with a concurrent increase in disability and chronicity. The health care system faces enormous challenges, with both the disability burden and financial impact relating to LBP escalating. Growing evidence suggests that current practice is discordant with contemporary evidence, and is in fact often exacerbating the problem. Change will demand a cultural shift in LBP beliefs and practice. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016;46(11):932-937. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.0609.},
	language = {eng},
	number = {11},
	journal = {The Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy},
	author = {O'Sullivan, Peter and Caneiro, Joao Paulo and O'Keeffe, Mary and O'Sullivan, Kieran},
	month = nov,
	year = {2016},
	pmid = {27802794},
	keywords = {Humans, Female, Low Back Pain, Male, LBP, clinical practice, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Pain Management, research},
	pages = {932--937}
}

@article{arendt-nielsen,
	title = {Assessment and manifestation of central sensitisation across different chronic pain conditions},
	volume = {22},
	issn = {1532-2149},
	doi = {10.1002/ejp.1140},
	abstract = {Different neuroplastic processes can occur along the nociceptive pathways and may be important in the transition from acute to chronic pain and for diagnosis and development of optimal management strategies. The neuroplastic processes may result in gain (sensitisation) or loss (desensitisation) of function in relation to the incoming nociceptive signals. Such processes play important roles in chronic pain, and although the clinical manifestations differ across condition processes, they share some common mechanistic features. The fundamental understanding and quantitative assessment of particularly some of the central sensitisation mechanisms can be translated from preclinical studies into the clinic. The clinical perspectives are implementation of such novel information into diagnostics, mechanistic phenotyping, prevention, personalised treatment, and drug development. The aims of this paper are to introduce and discuss (1) some common fundamental central pain mechanisms, (2) how they may translate into the clinical signs and symptoms across different chronic pain conditions, (3) how to evaluate gain and loss of function using quantitative pain assessment tools, and (4) the implications for optimising prevention and management of pain. The chronic pain conditions selected for the paper are neuropathic pain in general, musculoskeletal pain (chronic low back pain and osteoarthritic pain in particular), and visceral pain (irritable bowel syndrome in particular). The translational mechanisms addressed are local and widespread sensitisation, central summation, and descending pain modulation.
SIGNIFICANCE: Central sensitisation is an important manifestation involved in many different chronic pain conditions. Central sensitisation can be different to assess and evaluate as the manifestations vary from pain condition to pain condition. Understanding central sensitisation may promote better profiling and diagnosis of pain patients and development of new regimes for mechanism based therapy. Some of the mechanisms underlying central sensitisation can be translated from animals to humans providing new options in development of therapies and profiling drugs under development.},
	language = {eng},
	number = {2},
	journal = {European Journal of Pain (London, England)},
	author = {Arendt-Nielsen, L. and Morlion, B. and Perrot, S. and Dahan, A. and Dickenson, A. and Kress, H. G. and Wells, C. and Bouhassira, D. and Mohr Drewes, A.},
	month = feb,
	year = {2018},
	pmid = {29105941},
	pages = {216--241}
}

@article{danneels,
	title = {Differences in electromyographic activity in the multifidus muscle and the iliocostalis lumborum between healthy subjects and patients with sub-acute and chronic low back pain},
	volume = {11},
	issn = {0940-6719, 1432-0932},
	url = {http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s005860100314},
	doi = {10.1007/s005860100314},
	language = {en},
	number = {1},
	urldate = {2018-06-25},
	journal = {European Spine Journal},
	author = {Danneels, L. and Coorevits, P. and Cools, A. and Vanderstraeten, G. and Cambier, D. and Witvrouw, E. and De Cuyper, H.},
	month = feb,
	year = {2002},
	pages = {13--19},
	file = {Danneels et al. - 2002 - Differences in electromyographic activity in the m.pdf:/home/nim/Zotero/storage/KNXWKFCD/Danneels et al. - 2002 - Differences in electromyographic activity in the m.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{wong,
	title = {Do participants with low back pain who respond to spinal manipulative therapy differ biomechanically from nonresponders, untreated controls or asymptomatic controls?},
	volume = {40},
	issn = {1528-1159},
	doi = {10.1097/BRS.0000000000000981},
	abstract = {STUDY DESIGN: Nonrandomized controlled study.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients with low back pain (LBP) who respond to spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) differ biomechanically from nonresponders, untreated controls or asymptomatic controls.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Some but not all patients with LBP report improvement in function after SMT. When compared with nonresponders, studies suggest that SMT responders demonstrate significant changes in spinal stiffness, muscle contraction, and disc diffusion. Unfortunately, the significance of these observations remains uncertain given methodological differences between studies including a lack of controls.
METHODS: Participants with LBP and asymptomatic controls attended 3 sessions for 7 days. On sessions 1 and 2, participants with LBP received SMT (+LBP/+SMT, n = 32) whereas asymptomatic controls did not (-LBP/-SMT, n = 57). In these sessions, spinal stiffness and multifidus thickness ratios were obtained before and after SMT and on day 7. Apparent diffusion coefficients from lumbar discs were obtained from +LBP/+SMT participants before and after SMT on session 1 and from an LBP control group that did not receive SMT (+LBP/-SMT, n = 16). +LBP/+SMT participants were dichotomized as responders/nonresponders on the basis of self-reported disability on day 7. A repeated measures analysis of covariance was used to compare apparent diffusion coefficients among responders, nonresponders, and +LBP/-SMT subjects, as well as spinal stiffness or multifidus thickness ratio among responders, nonresponders, and -LBP/-SMT subjects.
RESULTS: After the first SMT, SMT responders displayed statistically significant decreases in spinal stiffness and increases in multifidus thickness ratio sustained for more than 7 days; these findings were not observed in other groups. Similarly, only SMT responders displayed significant post-SMT improvement in apparent diffusion coefficients.
CONCLUSION: Those reporting post-SMT improvement in disability demonstrated simultaneous changes between self-reported and objective measures of spinal function. This coherence did not exist for asymptomatic controls or no-treatment controls. These data imply that SMT impacts biomechanical characteristics within SMT responders not present in all patients with LBP. This work provides a foundation to investigate the heterogeneous nature of LBP, mechanisms underlying differential therapeutic response, and the biomechanical and imaging characteristics defining responders at baseline.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.},
	language = {eng},
	number = {17},
	journal = {Spine},
	author = {Wong, Arnold Y. L. and Parent, Eric C. and Dhillon, Sukhvinder S. and Prasad, Narasimha and Kawchuk, Gregory N.},
	month = sep,
	year = {2015},
	pmid = {26020851},
	keywords = {Humans, Pain Measurement, Adult, Female, Low Back Pain, Male, Manipulation, Spinal, Middle Aged, Young Adult, Lumbar Vertebrae, Adolescent, Treatment Outcome, Muscle, Skeletal, Muscle Contraction},
	pages = {1329--1337}
}

@article{stochkendahl,
	title = {Manual examination of the spine: a systematic critical literature review of reproducibility},
	volume = {29},
	issn = {1532-6586},
	shorttitle = {Manual examination of the spine},
	doi = {10.1016/j.jmpt.2006.06.011},
	abstract = {OBJECTIVE: Poor reproducibility of spinal palpation has been reported in previously published literature, and authors of recent reviews have posted criticism on study quality. This article critically analyzes the literature pertaining to the inter- and intraobserver reproducibility of spinal palpation to investigate the consistency of study results and assess the level of evidence for reproducibility.
METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis were performed on relevant literature published from 1965 to 2005, identified using the electronic databases MEDLINE, MANTIS, and CINAHL and checking of reference lists. Descriptive data from included articles were extracted independently by 2 reviewers. A 6-point scale was constructed to assess the methodological quality of original studies. A meta-analysis was conducted among the high-quality studies to investigate the consistency of data, separately on motion palpation, static palpation, osseous pain, soft tissue pain, soft tissue changes, and global assessment. A standardized method was used to determine the level of evidence.
RESULTS: The quality score of 48 included studies ranged from 0\% to 100\%. There was strong evidence that the interobserver reproducibility of osseous and soft tissue pain is clinically acceptable (kappa {\textgreater} or = 0.4) and that intraobserver reproducibility of soft tissue pain and global assessment are clinically acceptable. Other spinal procedures are either not reproducible or the evidence is conflicting or preliminary.},
	language = {eng},
	number = {6},
	journal = {Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics},
	author = {Stochkendahl, Mette Jensen and Christensen, Henrik Wulff and Hartvigsen, Jan and Vach, Werner and Haas, Mitchell and Hestbaek, Lise and Adams, Alan and Bronfort, Gert},
	month = aug,
	year = {2006},
	pmid = {16904495},
	keywords = {Humans, Reproducibility of Results, Pain, Sensitivity and Specificity, Palpation, Spinal Diseases},
	pages = {475--485, 485.e1--10}
}

@article{stanton,
	title = {Feeling stiffness in the back: a protective perceptual inference in chronic back pain},
	volume = {7},
	issn = {2045-2322},
	shorttitle = {Feeling stiffness in the back},
	doi = {10.1038/s41598-017-09429-1},
	abstract = {Does feeling back stiffness actually reflect having a stiff back? This research interrogates the long-held question of what informs our subjective experiences of bodily state. We propose a new hypothesis: feelings of back stiffness are a protective perceptual construct, rather than reflecting biomechanical properties of the back. This has far-reaching implications for treatment of pain/stiffness but also for our understanding of bodily feelings. Over three experiments, we challenge the prevailing view by showing that feeling stiff does not relate to objective spinal measures of stiffness and objective back stiffness does not differ between those who report feeling stiff and those who do not. Rather, those who report feeling stiff exhibit self-protective responses: they significantly overestimate force applied to their spine, yet are better at detecting changes in this force than those who do not report feeling stiff. This perceptual error can be manipulated: providing auditory input in synchrony to forces applied to the spine modulates prediction accuracy in both groups, without altering actual stiffness, demonstrating that feeling stiff is a multisensory perceptual inference consistent with protection. Together, this presents a compelling argument against the prevailing view that feeling stiff is an isomorphic marker of the biomechanical characteristics of the back.},
	language = {eng},
	number = {1},
	journal = {Scientific Reports},
	author = {Stanton, Tasha R. and Moseley, G. Lorimer and Wong, Arnold Y. L. and Kawchuk, Gregory N.},
	month = aug,
	year = {2017},
	pmid = {28851924},
	pmcid = {PMC5575135},
	pages = {9681}
}

@article{villafane,
	title = {Validity and everyday clinical applicability of lumbar muscle fatigue assessment methods in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: a systematic review},
	volume = {38},
	issn = {1464-5165},
	shorttitle = {Validity and everyday clinical applicability of lumbar muscle fatigue assessment methods in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain},
	doi = {10.3109/09638288.2015.1107777},
	abstract = {PURPOSE: This systematic literature review aimed at examining the validity and applicability in everyday clinical rehabilitation practise of methods for the assessment of back muscle fatiguability in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain (CNSLBP).
METHODS: Extensive research was performed in MEDLINE, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases from their inception to September 2014. Potentially relevant articles were also manually looked for in the reference lists of the identified publications. Studies examining lumbar muscle fatigue in people with CNSLBP were selected. Two reviewers independently selected the articles, carried out the study quality assessment and extracted the results. A modified Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) scale was used to evaluate the scientific rigour of the selected works.
RESULTS: Twenty-four studies fulfilled the selection criteria and were included in the systematic review. We found conflicting data regarding the validity of methods used to examine back muscle fatigue. The Biering-Sorensen test, performed in conjunction with surface electromyography spectral analysis, turned out to be the most widely used and comparatively, the most optimal modality currently available to assess objective back muscle fatigue in daily clinical practise, even though critical limitations are discussed.
CONCLUSIONS: Future research should address the identification of an advanced method for lower back fatigue assessment in patients with CNSLBP which, eventually, might provide physical therapists with an objective and reliable test usable in everyday clinical practise. Implications for Rehabilitation Despite its limitations, the Biering-Sorensen test is currently the most used, convenient and easily available fatiguing test for lumbar muscles. To increase validity and reliability of the Biering-Sorensen test, concomitant activation of synergistic muscles should be taken into account. Pooled mean frequency and half-width of the spectrum are currently the most valid electromyographic parameters to assess fatigue in chronic non-specific low back pain. Body mass index, grading of pain and level of disability of the study population should be reported to enhance research quality.},
	language = {eng},
	number = {19},
	journal = {Disability and Rehabilitation},
	author = {Villafañe, Jorge H. and Gobbo, Massimiliano and Peranzoni, Matteo and Naik, Ganesh and Imperio, Grace and Cleland, Joshua A. and Negrini, Stefano},
	year = {2016},
	pmid = {26732899},
	keywords = {Electromyography, Humans, Low Back Pain, Chronic Pain, Muscle, Skeletal, fatigue, low back pain, lumbar muscles, Muscle Fatigue, Physical Endurance},
	pages = {1859--1871}
}

@article{vos,
	title = {Years lived with disability ({YLDs}) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the {Global} {Burden} of {Disease} {Study} 2010},
	volume = {380},
	issn = {01406736},
	shorttitle = {Years lived with disability ({YLDs}) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990–2010},
	url = {http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673612617292},
	doi = {10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61729-2},
	abstract = {Background Non-fatal health outcomes from diseases and injuries are a crucial consideration in the promotion and monitoring of individual and population health. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) studies done in 1990 and 2000 have been the only studies to quantify non-fatal health outcomes across an exhaustive set of disorders at the global and regional level. Neither effort quantified uncertainty in prevalence or years lived with disability (YLDs).},
	language = {en},
	number = {9859},
	urldate = {2018-06-26},
	journal = {The Lancet},
	author = {Vos, Theo and Flaxman, Abraham D and Naghavi, Mohsen and Lozano, Rafael and Michaud, Catherine and Ezzati, Majid and Shibuya, Kenji and Salomon, Joshua A and Abdalla, Safa and Aboyans, Victor and Abraham, Jerry and Ackerman, Ilana and Aggarwal, Rakesh and Ahn, Stephanie Y and Ali, Mohammed K and AlMazroa, Mohammad A and Alvarado, Miriam and Anderson, H Ross and Anderson, Laurie M and Andrews, Kathryn G and Atkinson, Charles and Baddour, Larry M and Bahalim, Adil N and Barker-Collo, Suzanne and Barrero, Lope H and Bartels, David H and Basáñez, Maria-Gloria and Baxter, Amanda and Bell, Michelle L and Benjamin, Emelia J and Bennett, Derrick and Bernabé, Eduardo and Bhalla, Kavi and Bhandari, Bishal and Bikbov, Boris and Abdulhak, Aref Bin and Birbeck, Gretchen and Black, James A and Blencowe, Hannah and Blore, Jed D and Blyth, Fiona and Bolliger, Ian and Bonaventure, Audrey and Boufous, Soufiane and Bourne, Rupert and Boussinesq, Michel and Braithwaite, Tasanee and Brayne, Carol and Bridgett, Lisa and Brooker, Simon and Brooks, Peter and Brugha, Traolach S and Bryan-Hancock, Claire and Bucello, Chiara and Buchbinder, Rachelle and Buckle, Geoffrey and Budke, Christine M and Burch, Michael and Burney, Peter and Burstein, Roy and Calabria, Bianca and Campbell, Benjamin and Canter, Charles E and Carabin, Hélène and Carapetis, Jonathan and Carmona, Loreto and Cella, Claudia and Charlson, Fiona and Chen, Honglei and Cheng, Andrew Tai-Ann and Chou, David and Chugh, Sumeet S and Coffeng, Luc E and Colan, Steven D and Colquhoun, Samantha and Colson, K Ellicott and Condon, John and Connor, Myles D and Cooper, Leslie T and Corriere, Matthew and Cortinovis, Monica and de Vaccaro, Karen Courville and Couser, William and Cowie, Benjamin C and Criqui, Michael H and Cross, Marita and Dabhadkar, Kaustubh C and Dahiya, Manu and Dahodwala, Nabila and Damsere-Derry, James and Danaei, Goodarz and Davis, Adrian and De Leo, Diego and Degenhardt, Louisa and Dellavalle, Robert and Delossantos, Allyne and Denenberg, Julie and Derrett, Sarah and Des Jarlais, Don C and Dharmaratne, Samath D and Dherani, Mukesh and Diaz-Torne, Cesar and Dolk, Helen and Dorsey, E Ray and Driscoll, Tim and Duber, Herbert and Ebel, Beth and Edmond, Karen and Elbaz, Alexis and Ali, Suad Eltahir and Erskine, Holly and Erwin, Patricia J and Espindola, Patricia and Ewoigbokhan, Stalin E and Farzadfar, Farshad and Feigin, Valery and Felson, David T and Ferrari, Alize and Ferri, Cleusa P and Fèvre, Eric M and Finucane, Mariel M and Flaxman, Seth and Flood, Louise and Foreman, Kyle and Forouzanfar, Mohammad H and Fowkes, Francis Gerry R and Franklin, Richard and Fransen, Marlene and Freeman, Michael K and Gabbe, Belinda J and Gabriel, Sherine E and Gakidou, Emmanuela and Ganatra, Hammad A and Garcia, Bianca and Gaspari, Flavio and Gillum, Richard F and Gmel, Gerhard and Gosselin, Richard and Grainger, Rebecca and Groeger, Justina and Guillemin, Francis and Gunnell, David and Gupta, Ramyani and Haagsma, Juanita and Hagan, Holly and Halasa, Yara A and Hall, Wayne and Haring, Diana and Haro, Josep Maria and Harrison, James E and Havmoeller, Rasmus and Hay, Roderick J and Higashi, Hideki and Hill, Catherine and Hoen, Bruno and Hoffman, Howard and Hotez, Peter J and Hoy, Damian and Huang, John J and Ibeanusi, Sydney E and Jacobsen, Kathryn H and James, Spencer L and Jarvis, Deborah and Jasrasaria, Rashmi and Jayaraman, Sudha and Johns, Nicole and Jonas, Jost B and Karthikeyan, Ganesan and Kassebaum, Nicholas and Kawakami, Norito and Keren, Andre and Khoo, Jon-Paul and King, Charles H and Knowlton, Lisa Marie and Kobusingye, Olive and Koranteng, Adofo and Krishnamurthi, Rita and Lalloo, Ratilal and Laslett, Laura L and Lathlean, Tim and Leasher, Janet L and Lee, Yong Yi and Leigh, James and Lim, Stephen S and Limb, Elizabeth and Lin, John Kent and Lipnick, Michael and Lipshultz, Steven E and Liu, Wei and Loane, Maria and Ohno, Summer Lockett and Lyons, Ronan and Ma, Jixiang and Mabweijano, Jacqueline and MacIntyre, Michael F and Malekzadeh, Reza and Mallinger, Leslie and Manivannan, Sivabalan and Marcenes, Wagner and March, Lyn and Margolis, David J and Marks, Guy B and Marks, Robin and Matsumori, Akira and Matzopoulos, Richard and Mayosi, Bongani M and McAnulty, John H and McDermott, Mary M and McGill, Neil and McGrath, John and Medina-Mora, Maria Elena and Meltzer, Michele and Memish, Ziad A and Mensah, George A and Merriman, Tony R and Meyer, Ana-Claire and Miglioli, Valeria and Miller, Matthew and Miller, Ted R and Mitchell, Philip B and Mocumbi, Ana Olga and Moffitt, Terrie E and Mokdad, Ali A and Monasta, Lorenzo and Montico, Marcella and Moradi-Lakeh, Maziar and Moran, Andrew and Morawska, Lidia and Mori, Rintaro and Murdoch, Michele E and Mwaniki, Michael K and Naidoo, Kovin and Nair, M Nathan and Naldi, Luigi and Narayan, KM Venkat and Nelson, Paul K and Nelson, Robert G and Nevitt, Michael C and Newton, Charles R and Nolte, Sandra and Norman, Paul and Norman, Rosana and O'Donnell, Martin and O'Hanlon, Simon and Olives, Casey and Omer, Saad B and Ortblad, Katrina and Osborne, Richard and Ozgediz, Doruk and Page, Andrew and Pahari, Bishnu and Pandian, Jeyaraj Durai and Rivero, Andrea Panozo and Patten, Scott B and Pearce, Neil and Padilla, Rogelio Perez and Perez-Ruiz, Fernando and Perico, Norberto and Pesudovs, Konrad and Phillips, David and Phillips, Michael R and Pierce, Kelsey and Pion, Sébastien and Polanczyk, Guilherme V and Polinder, Suzanne and Pope, C Arden and Popova, Svetlana and Porrini, Esteban and Pourmalek, Farshad and Prince, Martin and Pullan, Rachel L and Ramaiah, Kapa D and Ranganathan, Dharani and Razavi, Homie and Regan, Mathilda and Rehm, Jürgen T and Rein, David B and Remuzzi, Guiseppe and Richardson, Kathryn and Rivara, Frederick P and Roberts, Thomas and Robinson, Carolyn and De Leòn, Felipe Rodriguez and Ronfani, Luca and Room, Robin and Rosenfeld, Lisa C and Rushton, Lesley and Sacco, Ralph L and Saha, Sukanta and Sampson, Uchechukwu and Sanchez-Riera, Lidia and Sanman, Ella and Schwebel, David C and Scott, James Graham and Segui-Gomez, Maria and Shahraz, Saeid and Shepard, Donald S and Shin, Hwashin and Shivakoti, Rupak and Silberberg, Donald and Singh, David and Singh, Gitanjali M and Singh, Jasvinder A and Singleton, Jessica and Sleet, David A and Sliwa, Karen and Smith, Emma and Smith, Jennifer L and Stapelberg, Nicolas JC and Steer, Andrew and Steiner, Timothy and Stolk, Wilma A and Stovner, Lars Jacob and Sudfeld, Christopher and Syed, Sana and Tamburlini, Giorgio and Tavakkoli, Mohammad and Taylor, Hugh R and Taylor, Jennifer A and Taylor, William J and Thomas, Bernadette and Thomson, W Murray and Thurston, George D and Tleyjeh, Imad M and Tonelli, Marcello and Towbin, Jeffrey A and Truelsen, Thomas and Tsilimbaris, Miltiadis K and Ubeda, Clotilde and Undurraga, Eduardo A and van der Werf, Marieke J and van Os, Jim and Vavilala, Monica S and Venketasubramanian, N and Wang, Mengru and Wang, Wenzhi and Watt, Kerrianne and Weatherall, David J and Weinstock, Martin A and Weintraub, Robert and Weisskopf, Marc G and Weissman, Myrna M and White, Richard A and Whiteford, Harvey and Wiersma, Steven T and Wilkinson, James D and Williams, Hywel C and Williams, Sean RM and Witt, Emma and Wolfe, Frederick and Woolf, Anthony D and Wulf, Sarah and Yeh, Pon-Hsiu and Zaidi, Anita KM and Zheng, Zhi-Jie and Zonies, David and Lopez, Alan D and Murray, Christopher JL},
	month = dec,
	year = {2012},
	pages = {2163--2196},
	file = {Vos et al. - 2012 - Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequel.pdf:/home/nim/Zotero/storage/Q4N5RC6S/Vos et al. - 2012 - Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequel.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{brinjikji,
	title = {Systematic {Literature} {Review} of {Imaging} {Features} of {Spinal} {Degeneration} in {Asymptomatic} {Populations}},
	volume = {36},
	issn = {0195-6108, 1936-959X},
	url = {http://www.ajnr.org/lookup/doi/10.3174/ajnr.A4173},
	doi = {10.3174/ajnr.A4173},
	abstract = {BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE—Degenerative changes are commonly found in spine imaging but often occur in pain-free individuals as well as those with back pain. We sought to estimate the prevalence, by age, of common degenerative spine conditions by performing a systematic review studying the prevalence of spine degeneration on imaging in asymptomatic individuals.},
	language = {en},
	number = {4},
	urldate = {2018-06-26},
	journal = {American Journal of Neuroradiology},
	author = {Brinjikji, W. and Luetmer, P.H. and Comstock, B. and Bresnahan, B.W. and Chen, L.E. and Deyo, R.A. and Halabi, S. and Turner, J.A. and Avins, A.L. and James, K. and Wald, J.T. and Kallmes, D.F. and Jarvik, J.G.},
	month = apr,
	year = {2015},
	pages = {811--816},
	file = {Brinjikji et al. - 2015 - Systematic Literature Review of Imaging Features o.pdf:/home/nim/Zotero/storage/92MFR76K/Brinjikji et al. - 2015 - Systematic Literature Review of Imaging Features o.pdf:application/pdf}
}

@article{bean,
	title = {Relationships between psychological factors, pain, and disability in complex regional pain syndrome and low back pain},
	volume = {30},
	issn = {1536-5409},
	doi = {10.1097/AJP.0000000000000007},
	abstract = {OBJECTIVE: Cognitive and emotional factors are known to influence peoples' pain experiences in many conditions, including low back pain. However, in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), their role is unclear. This study aimed to assess the relationships between psychological factors, pain, and disability in CRPS, compared with low back pain. This could help to identify target variables for psychological treatment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 88 CRPS patients and 88 low back pain patients completed measures of pain, disability, depression, anxiety, and fear of movement and reinjury (kinesiophobia). Mean scores between the 2 groups were compared, and correlations between psychological factors, pain, and disability were compared between the 2 groups. Predictors of pain and disability were assessed using multiple regression analyses.
RESULTS: The 2 groups had remarkably similar scores on measures of pain, disability, depression, anxiety, and kinesiophobia. In both groups, those who were more depressed, anxious, and kinesiophobic were more disabled. For the CRPS group (but not the low back pain group), pain intensity significantly correlated with distress. Multivariate analyses showed that the unique predictors of disability for the 2 groups were pain and depression, and that depression had a stronger relationship with disability for the CRPS group. For both groups, pain intensity was predicted by kinesiophobia, and anxiety was a unique predictor in the CRPS group only.
DISCUSSION: In CRPS, disability and pain severity were more strongly associated with psychological factors than they were in low back pain. Cause and effect relationships could not be established by this cross-sectional study.},
	language = {eng},
	number = {8},
	journal = {The Clinical Journal of Pain},
	author = {Bean, Debbie J. and Johnson, Malcolm H. and Kydd, Robert R.},
	month = aug,
	year = {2014},
	pmid = {24135903},
	keywords = {Adult, Complex Regional Pain Syndromes, Disability Evaluation, Female, Humans, Low Back Pain, Male, Middle Aged, Mood Disorders, Pain, Predictive Value of Tests, Regression Analysis},
	pages = {647--653}
}


@article{jensenrk,
	title = {The association between subgroups of {MRI} findings identified with latent class analysis and low back pain in 40-year-old {Danes}},
	volume = {19},
	issn = {1471-2474},
	doi = {10.1186/s12891-018-1978-x},
	abstract = {BACKGROUND: Research into the clinical importance of spinal MRI findings in patients with low back pain (LBP) has primarily focused on single imaging findings, such as Modic changes or disc degeneration, and found only weak associations with the presence of pain. However, numerous MRI findings almost always co-exist in the lumbar spine and are often present at more than one lumbar level. It is possible that multiple MRI findings are more strongly associated with LBP than single MRI findings. Latent Class Analysis is a statistical method that has recently been tested and found useful for identifying latent classes (subgroups) of MRI findings within multivariable datasets. The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between subgroups of MRI findings and the presence of LBP in people from the general population.
METHODS: To identify subgroups of lumbar MRI findings with potential clinical relevance, Latent Class Analysis was initially performed on a clinical dataset of 631 patients seeking care for LBP. Subsequently, 412 participants in a general population cohort (the 'Backs on Funen' project) were statistically allocated to those existing subgroups by Latent Class Analysis, matching their MRI findings at a segmental level. The subgroups containing MRI findings from the general population were then organised into hypothetical pathways of degeneration and the association between subgroups in the pathways and the presence of LBP was tested using exact logistic regression.
RESULTS: Six subgroups were identified in the clinical dataset and the data from the general population cohort fitted the subgroups well, with a median posterior probability of 93\%-100\%. These six subgroups described two pathways of increasing degeneration on upper (L1-L3) and lower (L4-L5) lumbar levels. An association with LBP was found for the subgroups describing severe and multiple degenerative MRI findings at the lower lumbar levels but none of the other subgroups were associated with LBP.
CONCLUSION: Although MRI findings are common in asymptomatic people and the association between single MRI findings and LBP is often weak, our results suggest that subgroups of multiple and severe lumbar MRI findings have a stronger association with LBP than those with milder degrees of degeneration.},
	language = {eng},
	number = {1},
	journal = {BMC musculoskeletal disorders},
	author = {Jensen, Rikke K. and Kent, Peter and Jensen, Tue S. and Kjaer, Per},
	year = {2018},
	pmid = {29463258},
	pmcid = {PMC5819254},
	keywords = {Latent class analysis, Low back pain, MRI, Subgroups},
	pages = {62}
}


@article{harrison2013,
  title={Portable acoustic myography--a realistic noninvasive method for assessment of muscle activity and coordination in human subjects in most home and sports settings},
  author={Harrison, Adrian P and Danneskiold-Sams{\o}e, Bente and Bartels, Else M},
  journal={Physiological reports},
  volume={1},
  number={2},
  pages={e00029},
  year={2013},
  publisher={Am Physiological Soc}
}

@article{gordon1948,
  title={The sounds from single motor units in a contracting muscle},
  author={Gordon, G and Holbourn, AHS},
  journal={The Journal of physiology},
  volume={107},
  number={4},
  pages={456},
  year={1948},
  publisher={Wiley-Blackwell}
}

@article{claudel2017,
  title={The relation between maximal voluntary force in m. palmaris longus and the temporal and spatial summation of muscle fiber recruitment in human subjects},
  author={Claudel, C{\'e}cyl G and Ahmed, Waqas and Elbr{\o}nd, Vibeke S and Harrison, Adrian P and Bartels, Else Marie},
  journal={Physiological reports},
  volume={6},
  number={1},
  year={2018},
  publisher={Wiley Online Library}
}