Trial reportMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2026
Effects of Abdominal Bracing Versus Abdominal Hollowing on Abdominal Muscle Thickness and Activation During Static and Dynamic Trunk Stabilization Tasks in Healthy Adults.
Trial report in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Abdominal hollowing selectively targets deep abdominal muscles, whereas abdominal bracing emphasizes global activation of the superficial musculature. This study aimed to compare the effects of abdominal bracing and abdominal hollowing on abdominal muscle thickness and activation during trunk stabilization tasks in healthy adults. MATERIAL AND METHODS Eighteen healthy adults (9 males, 9 females) participated in a randomized crossover study. Abdominal bracing and hollowing were performed in random order with a 1-week wash-out period. Muscle thickness of the rectus abdominis (RA), external oblique (EO), internal oblique (IO), and transversus abdominis (TrA) were measured using ultrasound imaging. Surface electromyography assessed activation of the RA, EO, and IO during a static hook-lying position and a dynamic supine toe-tap task. RESULTS RA thickness was greater during bracing than hollowing (10.07±1.55 mm vs 9.22±1.46 mm, p=0.032), whereas IO and TrA thicknesses were greater during hollowing (IO: 8.65±3.18 mm vs 6.63±2.14 mm; TrA: 4.08±1.23 mm vs 2.41±0.80 mm, both p<0.05), representing an approximately 31% increase in TrA thickness. During the static task, activation of the RA, EO, and IO was higher during hollowing (p<0.05), whereas no significant differences were observed during the dynamic task. CONCLUSIONS Abdominal hollowing preferentially enhances deep muscle activation during low-load static conditions, whereas abdominal bracing promotes global muscular engagement. With increasing task demands, stabilization strategies converge, indicating task-dependent neuromuscular coordination.
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.