The results suggest there is currently no evidence to support the use of dynamic sitting as a st and -alone approach in the management of LBP .
Overall , the evidence suggests that dynamic sitting approaches are not effective as a st and -alone management approach for LBP
Dynamic sitting has been proposed to reduce  low back pain ( LBP ) and /or low back discomfort ( LBD ) while sitting .
This is supported by studies suggesting that subjects with LBP assume more static , sustained postures while sitting .
This systematic review investigated the effect of dynamic sitting on LBP among subjects with LBP and the development of LBD among pain-free subjects .
Practitioner Summary : This systematic review investigated the effect of dynamic sitting on LBP or LBD .
Effectiveness of a Lumbar Support Continuous Passive Motion Device in the Prevention of Low Back Pain During Prolonged Sitting
Study Design . Subjective ratings of discomfort were compared between a fixed lumbar support and lumbar support continuous passive motion ( CPM ) device . Objective . To compare a fixed lumbar support with a lumbar support CPM device during prolonged sitting . Summary of Background Data . To prevent low back pain during prolonged sitting , an inflatable lumbar support CPM has been developed . There are no studies that compare static lumbar support with lumbar CPM using the same pressure in the cushions . Methods . A total of 31 male volunteers without low back pain sat in the same chair for a 2-hour period on each of 3 consecutive days under 3 r and omized test methods : 1 , no lumbar support ; 2 , static lumbar support ; and 3 , lumbar support CPM . Each subject rated low back pain , stiffness , fatigue , and buttock numbness on a visual analog scale ( VAS ) .  Fixed lumbar support and CPM device were compared with a same inflation pressure in the cushion . For 10 subjects , the whole body posture and the pressure distribution changes of the human-seat interface during CPM were evaluated . Results . Compared with no lumbar support , a significant improvement in VAS scores for low back pain , stiffness , and fatigue was obtained with both static lumbar support and with lumbar support CPM ( P < 0.005 ) . A significant ( P < 0.005 ) improvement for buttock numbness was obtained only with lumbar support CPM . There were no statistical differences in all VAS scores between the fixed lumbar support and the CPM device . A forward rotation of the pelvic region was obtained during inflation of the cushion during CPM . Significant differences ( P < 0.05 ) were found between cushion inflation and deflation periods both in contact areas and in the peak pressures at the human-seat interface . Conclusion . There were no statistical differences in the subjective ratings of discomfort between the fixed lumbar support and the CPM device
The results suggest there is currently no evidence to support the use of dynamic sitting as a st and -alone approach in the management of LBP .
Overall , the evidence suggests that dynamic sitting approaches are not effective as a st and -alone management approach for LBP
Dynamic sitting has been proposed to reduce  low back pain ( LBP ) and /or low back discomfort ( LBD ) while sitting .
This is supported by studies suggesting that subjects with LBP assume more static , sustained postures while sitting .
This systematic review investigated the effect of dynamic sitting on LBP among subjects with LBP and the development of LBD among pain-free subjects .
Practitioner Summary : This systematic review investigated the effect of dynamic sitting on LBP or LBD .