Trial reportDer Orthopade2016
[Chronic low back pain : Comparison of mobilization and core stability exercises].
Trial report in Der Orthopade, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Impact of education in patients undergoing physiotherapy for lower back pain: a level I systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025Pooled it
- Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Effects of Self-Myofascial Release and Dynamic Neuromuscular Stabilization Exercises on Pain, Balance, Muscle Function, and the Autonomic Nervous System in Women with Chronic Low Back Pain.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Trial
- Pain and Disability Therapy with Stabilization Exercises in Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Meta-Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Prognostic Factors in Patients Undergoing Physiotherapy for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Level I Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Physiotherapeutic and non-conventional approaches in patients with chronic low-back pain: a level I Bayesian network meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Kinesiological Treatment of Early Spine Osteoarthritis in a Motorcyclist.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Acute Dose-Response of Duration During the Isometric Forearm Plank Exercise on Muscle Thickness, Echo-Intensity, Peak Force, and Perception of Effort in Recreationally-Trained Participants.International journal of exercise science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFor the treatment of chronic low back pain (cLBP), both core stability and mobilization exercises were introduced. The aim of this prospective randomized clinical pilot study was to compare the efficacy of mobilization and core stability exercises with regard to objective and subjective outcome measures in patients with cLBP.
methodAfter a per-protocol analysis, the data of 27 patients with cLBP, who were randomly allocated to one of the two groups, were analyzed. The intervention group (GM) performed mobilization exercises using the BALLance-Methode®, the control group (GS) carried out core stability exercises for 4 weeks, and continued the exercises for an additional 4 weeks at home. Flexibility, strength endurance of the core stabilizing muscles, pain-induced disability, and pain avoidance behavior were the objective and subjective outcomes that were measured before, 4 weeks after, and 8 weeks after the onset of the intervention. The significance of differences within and between groups was analyzed.
resultsDuring the observation period, only in the GS patients could maintain the prone-plank position and the side-plank position improvements over time (p < 0.001), with significant differences compared with the GM (p < 0.05). Within both groups significant improvements in the subjective outcome measures were found (p < 0.05). Therefore, no significant differences existed between the groups.
conclusionWith regard to their daily complaints, patients with cLBP can be treated using standardized mobilization exercises in addition to core stability exercises.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26864586What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.