↓ Skip to main content

Trunk Muscle Activity during Drop Jump Performance in Adolescent Athletes with Back Pain

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
36 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Trunk Muscle Activity during Drop Jump Performance in Adolescent Athletes with Back Pain
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2017.00274
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steffen Mueller, Josefine Stoll, Juliane Mueller, Michael Cassel, Frank Mayer

Abstract

In the context of back pain, great emphasis has been placed on the importance of trunk stability, especially in situations requiring compensation of repetitive, intense loading induced during high-performance activities, e.g., jumping or landing. This study aims to evaluate trunk muscle activity during drop jump in adolescent athletes with back pain (BP) compared to athletes without back pain (NBP). Eleven adolescent athletes suffering back pain (BP: m/f: n = 4/7; 15.9 ± 1.3 y; 176 ± 11 cm; 68 ± 11 kg; 12.4 ± 10.5 h/we training) and 11 matched athletes without back pain (NBP: m/f: n = 4/7; 15.5 ± 1.3 y; 174 ± 7 cm; 67 ± 8 kg; 14.9 ± 9.5 h/we training) were evaluated. Subjects conducted 3 drop jumps onto a force plate (ground reaction force). Bilateral 12-lead SEMG (surface Electromyography) was applied to assess trunk muscle activity. Ground contact time [ms], maximum vertical jump force [N], jump time [ms] and the jump performance index [m/s] were calculated for drop jumps. SEMG amplitudes (RMS: root mean square [%]) for all 12 single muscles were normalized to MIVC (maximum isometric voluntary contraction) and analyzed in 4 time windows (100 ms pre- and 200 ms post-initial ground contact, 100 ms pre- and 200 ms post-landing) as outcome variables. In addition, muscles were grouped and analyzed in ventral and dorsal muscles, as well as straight and transverse trunk muscles. Drop jump ground reaction force variables did not differ between NBP and BP (p > 0.05). Mm obliquus externus and internus abdominis presented higher SEMG amplitudes (1.3-1.9-fold) for BP (p < 0.05). Mm rectus abdominis, erector spinae thoracic/lumbar and latissimus dorsi did not differ (p > 0.05). The muscle group analysis over the whole jumping cycle showed statistically significantly higher SEMG amplitudes for BP in the ventral (p = 0.031) and transverse muscles (p = 0.020) compared to NBP. Higher activity of transverse, but not straight, trunk muscles might indicate a specific compensation strategy to support trunk stability in athletes with back pain during drop jumps. Therefore, exercises favoring the transverse trunk muscles could be recommended for back pain treatment.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Ireland 1 1%
Unknown 90 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Researcher 8 9%
Other 6 7%
Other 20 22%
Unknown 21 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 25 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 32 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 October 2017.
All research outputs
#1,562,229
of 24,933,778 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#845
of 15,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,860
of 316,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#29
of 258 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,933,778 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,315 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,384 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 258 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.