SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Comparative effectiveness of different core muscle training regimens for chronic non-specific low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To systematically evaluate and compare the relative effectiveness of different core muscle training modalities in alleviating pain and improving function in individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain (CNLBP). Methods: Chinese and English language databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials involving individuals with CNLBP. Intervention groups received core training either alone or combined with other therapies, while control groups received usual rehabilitation or other exercise interventions. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability scores. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software, with subgroup analyses conducted to examine the moderating effects of intervention type and intervention duration. Forest plots and funnel plots were generated using MATLAB-R2024. Results: Fifteen randomized controlled trialswere included. Meta-analysis revealed that core training significantly improved pain (SMD = -0.56, 95% CI: -1.08 to -0.03) and function (SMD = -0.81, 95% CI: -1.38 to -0.25). subgroup analyses indicated that combined interventions significantly improved function (SMD = -0.96, Conclusion: Current direct comparative evidence suggests that augmenting core training with additional rehabilitative components may confer greater benefits for functional improvement, while extending the intervention duration beyond eight weeks may optimize pain relief. Clinical decisions regarding training modality selection should be individualized based on the patient's primary treatment goal. Further high-quality research is warranted to strengthen the evidence base for comparisons between specific training modalities. Systematic review registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251031252], identifier [CRD420251031252].
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.