ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences
Comparison of two types of exercises in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exercise treatments for lumbar spinal stenosis: A systematic review and intervention component analysis of randomised controlled trials.Clinical rehabilitation · 2024Pooled it
- Computed tomography-guided oxygen-ozone injection for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation complicated with lumbar spinal stenosis.Medical gas research · 2026Article
- Kinematic characteristics of lumbar flexion and extension in lumbar spinal stenosis: the role of pain catastrophizing.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025Article
- The Essence of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis, 2021: 3. Conservative Treatment.Spine surgery and related research · 2023Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of core stability exercise versus conventional exercise in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.
methodsBetween January 2014 and May 2017, patients with lumbar spinal stenosis were recruited and divided into group of core stability exercise or conventional exercise randomly. All the patients were treated using middle frequency electrotherapy, in addition to that, the patients in group of core stability exercise were treated using core stability exercise. The patients in group of conventional exercise were treated using conventional exercise. The outcome was evaluated using Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, self-reported walking capacity and lumbar lordosis angle at baseline and after treatment.
resultsIn the current study, sixty-two patients with lumbar spinal stenosis met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, in which 33 patients were included in group of core stability exercise and 29 in group of conventional exercise. After treatment, both Japanese Orthopedic Association scores (p<0.05) and self-reported walking capacity (p<0.05) increased significantly in each group when compared with baseline. The self-reported walking capacity and JOA scores in the group of core stability exercise were significantly higher than those in the conventional exercise group (p<0.05). However, both the intragroup and intergroup comparison of lumbar lordosis presented with no significance (p>0.05).
conclusionCore stability exercise presents with better efficacy than conventional exercise in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.
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.