ArticleTrials2018
Dose-response relationship of core-specific sensorimotor interventions in healthy, well-trained participants: study protocol for a (MiSpEx) randomized controlled trial.
Article in Trials, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychosocial Moderators and Mediators of Sensorimotor Exercise in Low Back Pain: A Randomized Multicenter Controlled Trial.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
- The Feasibility and Effectiveness of a New Practical Multidisciplinary Treatment for Low-Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCore-specific sensorimotor exercises are proven to enhance neuromuscular activity of the trunk, improve athletic performance and prevent back pain. However, the dose-response relationship and, therefore, the dose required to improve trunk function is still under debate. The purpose of the present trial will be to compare four different intervention strategies of sensorimotor exercises that will result in improved trunk function. METHODS/
designA single-blind, four-armed, randomized controlled trial with a 3-week (home-based) intervention phase and two measurement days pre and post intervention (M1/M2) is designed. Experimental procedures on both measurement days will include evaluation of maximum isokinetic and isometric trunk strength (extension/flexion, rotation) including perturbations, as well as neuromuscular trunk activity while performing strength testing. The primary outcome is trunk strength (peak torque). Neuromuscular activity (amplitude, latencies as a response to perturbation) serves as secondary outcome. The control group will perform a standardized exercise program of four sensorimotor exercises (three sets of 10 repetitions) in each of six training sessions (30 min duration) over 3 weeks. The intervention groups' programs differ in the number of exercises, sets per exercise and, therefore, overall training amount (group I: six sessions, three exercises, two sets; group II: six sessions, two exercises, two sets; group III: six sessions, one exercise, three sets). The intervention programs of groups I, II and III include additional perturbations for all exercises to increase both the difficulty and the efficacy of the exercises performed. Statistical analysis will be performed after examining the underlying assumptions for parametric and non-parametric testing. DISCUSSION: The results of the study will be clinically relevant, not only for researchers but also for (sports) therapists, physicians, coaches, athletes and the general population who have the aim of improving trunk function.
trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register, ID: DRKS00012917 . Registered on 22 August 2017.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.