ArticleCureus2024
Effects of Movement Retraining and Lumbar Stabilization Exercises in Mechanical Low Back Pain: A Pilot Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06994364 (Efficacy of Psoas Muscle Release in Young Adults With Non-specific Mechanical Low Back Pain), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Efficacy of Psoas Muscle Release in Young Adults With Non-specific Mechanical Low Back Pain: Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective To determine and compare the effects of movement retraining (MR), lumbar stabilization exercises (LSE), and a combination of both these exercises on pain, flexibility, strength, and functional disability in chronic mechanical low back pain (CMLBP) patients. Materials and methods Fifteen CMLBP participants, aged 20-40 years, were randomly allocated into three groups. Group A (n=5) received MR, group B (n=5), LSE, and group C (n=5), a combination of MR and CSE, along with hot packs for eight weeks, thrice a week on alternate days. Outcomes used were the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Modified Modified Schober's Test (MMST), Pressure Biofeedback (PBU), Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), and Movement Control (MC) dissociation tests to identify MC impairments and were assessed at pre-intervention, post-four weeks, and post-eight weeks. The data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA. The level of significance was considered at p-value<0.05. Results Participants with CMLBP significantly improved in all variables in all three groups (p-value≤0.05). On inter-group comparison, group A showed better improvement in lumbar extension range of motion than the other two groups, with a mean difference of MMST in group A of 0.62±0.30, group B of 0.52±0.22, and group C of 0.36±0.02, with a p-value ≤0.002. Group C showed more improvement in core strength, with a mean difference of 5.0±0.25 in group A, 3.2±0.56 in group B, and 5.2±0.57 in group C, with a p-value ≤0.03. A significant improvement was observed in NPRS, MMST flexion, RMDQ, and uncontrolled movements (UCMs). Conclusion All three methods of treatment are effective in the management of CMLBP. Clinically, kinetic control showed better improvement in reducing pain and improving lumbar flexion and extension range of motion. Functional disability was better improved with lumbar stabilization exercises, and core strength was improved with a combination of KC and LSE. However, a combination of MR and LSE helps improve core strength, and movement retraining improves lumbar extension.
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.