Table A1.

Characteristics of included studies.

Study	Aim	Population Characteristics	Examiners Characteristics	Methods	Outcomes	Results
Murphy et al. [34]	To investigate whether the finding of deviation of the lumbar spine during the hip extension test could be detected reliably by clinicians trained in the performance of the test	N = 42 (31 W) with LBP > 7 weeks	Two chiropractic physicians: (1 with 13 years of experience and 1 with <1 year of experience) and a training period pre-study of 1 h.	Hip extension test for each hip. Max 3 repetitions.	Dichotomous judgment (Test +/−)	K = 0.72 (L)–0.76 (R)
		Average age 37.8 (range 19–60).		Observers evaluate the patient at the same time and are “blind” to the results of the colleague’s evaluation.	K coefficient for inter-operator reliability
		Patients from spinal center.
Luomajoki et al. [33]	To determine the inter- and intra-operator reliability of 10 MCI tests of the lumbar spine.	N = 40 (26 D, 14 U).	4 examiners with 3-day of intensive course on MCI prior to assessment.	10 MCI tests:	Dichotomous judgment (Test +/-); K coefficient for inter-and intra-operator reliability	Inter-rater:
		13 LBP + 27 healthy.		Waiter’s bow, pelvic tilt, one leg stance R, one leg stance L, sitting knee extension, rocking backwards, rocking forwards, dorsal tilt of pelvis, prone active knee-flexion, and crook lying.
						K = 0.38–0.72
		Average age: 52.1.	2 examiners were specialists in MCI and had postgraduate degrees in manual therapy, with 25 years of working experience. The other	Raters were blinded to the diagnosis of patients and the colleagues’ evaluation results. The performances were recorded (anonymously), and raters watched each video only once.
						Intra-rater:
		Patients from private physiotherapy practice.
						K = 0.51–0.95
			2 raters were Pt with 5 years of experience.	Reviewed after 2 weeks.
Roussel et al. [35]	To investigate reliability and internal consistency of 2 clinical tests that analyze motor control mechanisms.	N = 36 (21 W) with LBP	2 examiners: 1 with master’s degree and 1 Pt with 4 years of clinical experience.	Trendelenburg	Dichotomous judgment (Test +/−)- weighted K for inter-operator reliability	K = 0.70–0.83 for Trendelenburg and ASLR.
				Active straight leg raise
		Average age (mean ± SD): 37.4 ± 11.6 (range 21–62)	Training of 2 h x 2 days by an expert + evaluation of 10 pre-study patients.	Evaluation by examiner 1, 10’ rest (in which the patient was asked to complete questionnaires), then evaluation by examiner 2.
		Patients from a private clinic and 2 outpatient physiotherapy clinics.
				Order of the tests randomly assigned.
				Both examiners were blinded to the others’ scores and the patients’ medical history.
Luomajoki et al. [39]	To evaluate the performance of 6 MCI tests in LBP and healthy patients.	N = 210 (130 W, 80 M)	12 examiners with 7 years of average working experience, all with OMT specialization.	Cluster of 6 tests:	Dichotomous judgment (Test +/−) N° of test +	N° of positive tests: 2.21 in LBP group and 0.75 in healthy controls.
				Waiter’s bow, pelvic tilt, one leg stance, sitting knee extension, rocking 4 point kneeling, and prone knee bend.
	Understand whether staging of LBP affects the results.	102 healthy, 108 LBP:	Raters were trained using instruction, patient cases, and rating of videotaped tests.	The order of the tests was always the same.	Effect size for the difference between group	Effect size between-group: 1.18 (95% CI: 1.02–1.34), p < 0.001.
		29 with LBP <6 weeks, 30 with 6–12 weeks, 46 with LBP >12 weeks.
		Patients from 5 physiotherapy clinics.		Pt were not blinded to the patient’s group.
Roussel et al. [36]	To determine inter-ex reliability and internal consistency of the 4 clinical tests examining lumbopelvic MCI in patients with and without LBP.	N = 52	With three 1-h training sessions, 2 examiners were trained in performing the tests under supervision of 2 manual therapists.	MCI evaluation with PBU: -Active straight leg raising, bent knee fall out, knee lift abdominal test, and standing bow.	ICC	ICC = 0.41–0.91
		25 healthy, 27 with LBP (>3 months).			K coefficient	K = 0.78 (healthy) e 0.80 (LBP)
				Observation examiner 1 → 10-min rest → observation examiner 2. Assessors were blinded to the medical history of the patients.	Chronbach α for internal consistency	Chronbach α = 0.83 (LBP) e 0.65 (healthy).
Tidstrand and Horneij [37]	To determine inter-examiner reliability of 3 tests of muscular functional coordination of the lumbar spine in patient with LBP.	N = 19 (9 W, 10 M)	2 experienced Pts, both trained in orthopedic manual therapy and in the McKenzie method. Both had more than 5 years of experience of treating patients with lumbar instability.	The 2 examiners evaluated individually but simultaneously the patients in the following tests:	Dichotomous judgment (Test +/−) - K of Cohen for inter-ex reliability	K range = 0.47–1.00
				le-Single limb stance, sitting on Bobath ball with one leg lifted, and unilateral pelvic lift.	% of agreement
		13 with LBP.	Pre-study trial on 10 patients.	Each test was performed once on both sides, and each test position was maintained for 20 s. Tests were administered in the same order to all patients.
		Average age ± SD: 42 years ± 12.				mean K = 0.77.
		Patients from a private physiotherapy clinic.		Examiners were blinded to the patient’s symptoms.
				Detected the VAS score before each test: VAS > 7/10 was an exclusion criterion.
Enoch et al. [30]	To determine inter-operator reliability of MCI tests on patients with and without LBP	N = 40 (26 W, 14 M).	2 examiners with 20 years of clinical experience, teachers at the Danish Manual Therapy Society.	Each patient was evaluated by each operator independently in two separate rooms. Both examiners performed the tests in the same order on each subject.	total mean + standard deviation for each test.	ICC = 0.90–0.98
		LBP 25 + 15 healthy.
		Age range: 20–82.
		Patients from 3 private clinics of physical therapy.	Pre-study trial on 10 patients.	5 tests for MCI:	ICC for inter-ex reproducibility	Mean ICC = 0.95
				Joint position sense, sitting forward lean, sitting knee extension, bent knee fall out, and leg lowering. Max 10 repetitions of each test.
Roussel et al. [40]	To compare lumbopelvic motor control between dancers with and without a history of LBP.	N = 40 (38 W, 2 M)		2 tests were used for evaluation of MCI:	mmHg pressure on PBU and difference between groups	p = 0.048 KLAT
		Age 17–26. Mean age 20.3 (SD 2.4).
		16 patients with LBP (at least 2 consecutive days in the last year).		Knee lift abdominal test,		p = 0.049 BKFO
				Bent knee fall out.
		Patients from the Department of Dance of a Conservatoire in Belgium.		The tests were performed in supine position and monitored with a PBU.
Biely et al. [28]	To investigate the inter-examiner reliability of observation of aberrant movement patterns and whether each pattern is associated with current LBP.	N = 102 (48–57% D)	5 examiners with experience from 5 to 25 years in orthopaedic examination of the low back, including 2 certified orthopaedic clinical specialists.	2 therapists simultaneously observed the patient perform 3 repetitions of trunk forward bending and return to upright for the presence of the following 3 aberrant movement patterns:	Dichotomous judgment (Test +/−)	K = 0.35–1.00
						Construct validity: LBP vs no LBP:
						p = 0.004 DEV
						p = 0.002 JUD
						LBP vs LBP history: p = 0.001 JUD
						No LBP vs history LBP: p = 0.001 DEV
						AMS:
						p < 0.001 for
						LBP
				Altered lumbo-pelvic rhythm (including Gower’s sign), deviation from the sagittal plane (DEV), instability catch (JUD).		No LBP vs LBP
						LBP vs history LBP
						p = 0.021 for No LBP vs history LBP
		Average age: 41.1–44.4
		35 without LBP, 31 with current LBP, 36 with history of LBP.			K value for inter-examiner reliability
					p value as correlation index for construct validity.
		Patients from 2 physiotherapy clinics.	2 h of pre-study training and a study manual.
				Examiner blinded to group membership. Each therapist’s observations were recorded on a separate clinical observation of aberrant movement form. No discussion between raters.
Bruno et al. [29]	To investigate: the difference between LBP subjects and healthy in	N = 70 (40 W, 30 M)	2 chiropractors with over 30 years of clinical experience.	The participants performed 3–5 repetitions of each test, while the examiners simultaneously observed the performances:	Dichotomous judgment (Test +/-)- score 0–5 for the participant-reported perception of difficulty	PHE: K = 0.72
						ASLR: K = 0.79
						Participant scores (average):
	reported perception of difficulty in the test execution and;	Average age 27.7 years old.				PHE:
				Prone hip extension (PHE),		1.33 (0.11) LBP
						0.38 (0.07) healthy.
				Active straight leg raise (ASLR).		ASLR:
	participant difference in reported perception of difficulty between subjects rated as positive or negative.	30 with LBP, 40 healthy.
						0.85 (0.11) LBP
						0.25 (0.05) healthy.
					K for inter-ex reliability	PHE and ASLR:
				The order of the test and leg lifted first were randomized.	Sensitivity and specificity	p < 0.001 for group status and participant scores. Not between group and examiner classification. Not between examiner classification and participant scores.
						LBP group perceived significant difficulty compared to the control group.
						PHE:
	- specificity and sensitivity of participant-reported perception of difficulty scores in individuals with non-pregnancy-related LBP and controls.	Patients from local medical, chiropractic, physiotherapy, and massage therapy clinics	Pre-study: 1 meeting and 3 training session to achieve a consensus.	The examiners were blinded to the group status and to the colleague’s score.		Sn: 0.82–Sp: 0.69
						ASLR:
				Patient were blinded to the evaluation of the examiners, and they were asked to express a score on a scale of 0–5 after the observer had left the room.		Sn: 0.60–Sp: 0.76. (in cut-off 0–1).
Ohe et al. [35]	To quantify the characteristics of the trunk control during active limb movement in LBP patients with different types of LBP manifestation based on direct mechanical stress to the lumbar spine.	N = 60 (33 W, 27 M).	1 examiner which instructs the patient to perform the test.	During the unilateral leg-raising movement in crook-lying position (for 3 times), pressure changes produced by the movement of the lumbar lordotic curve were measured by a PBU.	ICC were calculated to confirm the relative reliability	ICC = 0.71–0.79
		Age 20–58
		30 LBP, 30 healthy.		Data collection was executed 4 times. These 4 trials provided 4 repetitive sets of data of back pressure. Each trial was performed with 30 s rest.
		Patients from the outpatient department of the local hospital.
Gondhalekar et al. [31]	To determine the intra- and inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity of the standing back extension test for detecting MCI of the lumbar spine.	N = 50.	2 examiners with OMT specialization.	All patients were assessed in two observations that were 24 to 48 h apart at the same time of day by both operators separately. Both the raters took two readings for each subject in two different visits.	Dichotomous judgment (Test +/-)	Intra-rater:
						K = 0.87
						% agreement: 96
					For reliability:	Inter-es:
						K = 0.78
					% agreement	% agreement: 94
		25 with NS-LBP, 25 healthy controls.		Finally, they underwent evaluation by ultrasound as a gold standard.	K coefficient.	AUC 0.785 for ADIM 0.780 for ASLRs
				Order of examination was varied.	For validity:
				Both raters were blinded to the findings of the other rater and to their own prior findings.	Test +/-
		Age 32.6–33.5			Area under the curve (AUC)
				Raters were not blinded to the subject’s disease status.	Sn and Sp
					LR
Granström et al. [32]	To evaluate inter- and intra-examiner reliability and discriminative validity of 3 movement control tests.	N = 38 (24 W, 14 M).	4 examiners with 13–32 years’ work experience, all were qualified orthopedic manual therapists.	Patients performed 3 tests in a standardized order:	For inter and intra-ex reliability: ICC	Inter-observer: ICC = 0.68–0.80.
						Intra-observer: ICC = 0.54–0.82
				Standing knee lift (SKL), static lunge (SL), and dynamic lunge (DL).
				They were video recorded on the frontal and sagittal planes.	For validity: ROC curves	Validity ranged between 0.47 and 0.56.
				The examiners (blinded to the subjects’ health status and each other’s results) individually scored the tests and calculated a composite score for each test based on the number of incorrect test components (0 or 1).
				For inter-observer reliability, the observers received the numbered video clips (a random-drawn number showing which of the video clips to begin with).	AUC	SKL not-informative, SL and DL are less accurate than the effect of chance alone in discriminating subjects into healthy or NS-LBP group.
		Average age 37.5 years (19–58). 21 NSLBP, 17 healthy.	Pre-study: one-day course in evaluating the tests + training session and test trial on video clips.	They were instructed to study each video clip no more than five times. The same procedure was repeated after 2 weeks.
		Patients with LBP from private physiotherapy clinics, the healthy selected from university students and acquaintances.