ArticlePain and therapy2022
The Effect of M-Health-Based Core Stability Exercise Combined with Self-Compassion Training for Patients with Nonspecific Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study.
Article in Pain and therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 7 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- The physical and psychological effectiveness of mHealth-based physiotherapy for patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of telemedicine and telecare · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative effectiveness of different core muscle training regimens for chronic non-specific low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for depression and anxiety in chronic low back pain: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- mHealth applications to enhance physical therapy outcomes among adults with chronic non-cancer pain: a scoping review.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Pooled it
- Mobile technologies for rehabilitation in non-specific spinal disorders: a systematic review of the efficacy and potential for implementation in low- and middle-income countries.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 · 2023Pooled it
- Efficacy of mHealth Interventions for Improving the Pain and Disability of Individuals With Chronic Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2023Pooled it
- What are the benefits of cultivating self-compassion in adults with low back pain? A systematic review.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Pooled it
- Six-month follow-up results of clinic- and telerehabilitation-based motor control exercises in individuals with chronic low back pain: A randomized controlled trial.Irish journal of medical science · 2026Trial
- Meta-analysis of the therapeutic effects of different core muscle training on pain and function in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Acupuncture Combined with Core Stability Exercise for Pain, Function, and Postural Control Impairments in Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- The associations of chronic pain and 24-h movement behaviors with incident mental disorders: evidence from a large-scale cohort study.BMC medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Randomized-controlled trial assessing a digital care program versus conventional physiotherapy for chronic low back pain.NPJ digital medicine · 2023Article
- Impact of an AI app-based exercise program for people with low back pain compared to standard care: A longitudinal cohort-study.Health science reports · 2023Article
- Why Treat Patients with a Major Orthopaedic Surgery Only to Send Them Back to the Vulnerable Conditions That Made Them Sick in the First Place? A Conceptual Scenario to Improve Patient's Journey.International journal of general medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Ultrasonography Comparison of Diaphragm Morphological Structure and Function in Young and Middle-Aged Subjects with and without Non-Specific Chronic Low Back Pain: A Case-Control Study.Pain research & management · 2022Article
- Artificial intelligence technologies and compassion in healthcare: A systematic scoping review.Frontiers in psychology · 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
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionNonspecific chronic low back pain (NCLBP) is a leading contributor to disease burden worldwide, and the management of NCLBP has always been a problem. This study is designed to explore the feasibility and efficacy of m-health-based core stability exercise (CSE) combined with self-compassion training (SCT) and compare it with m-health-based CSE alone for the management of NCLBP.
methodsThis study is a pilot, patient-blinded randomized controlled trial. Participants with NCLBP were randomized into an intervention group and a control group. All the participants received m-health-based CSE, but those in the intervention group also received SCT before CSE. The intervention took place weekly on Saturday or Sunday for 4 weeks in total. Patients self-assessed their outcomes by filling out electronic questionnaires at 4 and 16 weeks after the start of the study. The primary outcome metrics for these questionnaires were back pain disability (based on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, RMDQ) and Pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale, NRS; current pain, worst pain, average pain). The secondary outcome metrics were anxiety (GAD-7,7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale), Depression Symptoms (PHQ-9,Patient Health Questionnaire-9), pain catastrophizing (PCS, Pain Catastrophizing Scale) and Self-efficiency (PSEQ, Pain Self-Efficiency Questionnaire).
resultsA total of 37 patients comprising 28 (75.7%) females completed the study, with 19 patients in the intervention group and 18 in the control group. The mean (SD) patient age was 35.2 (11.1) years. For all primary outcomes, although there were no significant differences between groups, we found that participants in the intervention group improved function and pain earlier. The RMDQ score changed by - 1.771 points (95% CI - 3.768 to 0.227) from baseline to 4 weeks in the control group and by - 4.822 points (95% CI - 6.752 to - 2.892) in the intervention group (difference between groups, - 3.052 [95% CI - 5.836 to - 0.267]). Also, the RMDQ score changed by - 3.328 points (95% CI - 5.252 to - 1.403) from baseline to 16 weeks in the control group and by - 5.124 points (95% CI - 7.014 to - 3.233) in the intervention group (difference between groups - 1.796 [95% CI - 4.501 to 0.909]). A similar pattern was found in the NRS scores. For secondary outcomes, the intervention group was superior to the control group in for GAD-7 (intervention difference from CSE along at week 16, - 2.156 [95% CI - 4.434 to - 0.122; P value for group effect was 0.030]). At the end of treatment, the improvement in PCS in the intervention group was significant (difference in PCS score at week 4, - 6.718 [95% CI - 11.872 to - 1.564]). We also found significant changes in PCS in the control group (- 6.326 [95% CI, - 11.250 to - 1.401]) at the 16-week follow-up. As for PSEQ, there were no apparent differences between the two groups. There were no adverse events relented to study participation.
conclusionsThe pilot study is feasible to deliver, and our results indicate that participants in the group of m-health-based CSE combined with SCT may experience faster relief from pain intensity and back disability than those in the group of m-health-based CSE alone.
trial registrationChiCTR2100042810.
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.