Trial reportScientific reports2026
Core stability versus postural control training for pain, disability, and sensorimotor function in chronic non-specific low back pain.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 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
Chronic non-specific low back pain (CNSLBP) often involves impaired sensorimotor control and functional limitations. This study compared the effects of core stability training (CST) and postural control training (PCT) on pain, functional disability, proprioception, balance, and quality of life (QOL) in middle-aged women with CNSLBP. In a three-arm, assessor-blinded RCT, 51 women were randomized to PCT (n = 17), CST (n = 17), or a control group (n = 17). Pain (VAS), proprioception (goniometric joint repositioning), static balance (Stork test), functional disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMDQ] and Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), and QOL (SF-36) were assessed. Between-group differences were analyzed using mean differences and confidence intervals, and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). The CST group demonstrated significant reductions in ODI (MD = -13.36, 95% CI: -16.63 to -10.10, p < 0.001), RMDQ (MD = -4.82, 95% CI: -5.37 to -4.28, p < 0.001), and pain (MD = -2.48, 95% CI: -3.03 to -1.93, p < 0.001). Similarly, the PCT group showed significant improvements in ODI (MD = -14.05, 95% CI: -17.04 to -11.07, p < 0.001), RMDQ (MD = -4.42, 95% CI: -4.94 to -3.90, p < 0.001), and pain (MD = -2.96, 95% CI: -3.47 to -2.46, p < 0.001). In addition, proprioception improved significantly only in the PCT group, while no significant change was observed in the CST group (p = 0.17) compared with controls. Both CST and PCT effectively reduced pain and disability in women with CNSLBP. PCT demonstrated greater improvements in lumbo-pelvic proprioception compared with control, suggesting potential benefits for sensorimotor function. These findings support a multidimensional approach to CNSLBP rehabilitation targeting both pain and neuromuscular impairments.Clinical trial registration: This study was a priori registered at IRCT20250519065806N2 on 12 April 2026.
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.