Potential predictors of activity and pain intensity twelve months after spinal motor control training in patients with low back pain

Aasa, Björn; Berglund, Björn; Aasa, Ulrika

doi:10.1016/j.physio.2015.03.135

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Only three of the included studies used ST in comparing MC and IM [ 21 , 34 ] and only two included studies comparing IT to IM [ 63 , 71 ]. Standardisation and use of a select set of objective outcomes would provide better comparison in future meta-analyses.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Due to the non-specific nature of the CLBP diagnosis given to the 19–60 year population group, recent meta-analyses on CLBP intervention [ 26 , 27 , 28 ] have focused on this population as a whole. Many intervention studies have either used a similar age range [ 21 , 23 ] or do not specify any age range [ 33 , 34 ] in their subject recruitment criteria. CLBP is defined as persistent low back pain for at least 12 weeks [ 3 , 35 ] or as diagnosed by a clinician.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Patients under 40 may have a 3.7 times higher chance of pain and disability reduction than older patients [ 58 ]. Some intervention studies recruited patients with an age range that overlapped 40 [ 21 , 34 ]. Patient mean age was used to group the included studies.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Effects of Different Trunk Training Methods for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Meta-Analysis

Sutanto

Poon

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing motor control, isometric, and isotonic trunk training intervention for pain, disability, and re-injury risk reduction in chronic low back pain patients. The EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, and CINAHL databases were searched from inception until 25 February 2021 for chronic low back pain intervention based on any trunk training. Outcomes include the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) for disability, the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) for pain, and the Sorensen Test (ST) for future risk of re-injury. Isometric training was superior to the control with a mean difference (MD) = −1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) [−2.30, −1.01] in pain reduction; MD = −7.94, 95% CI [−10.29, −5.59] in ODI; MD = −3.21, 95% CI [−4.83, −1.60] in RMDQ; and MD = 56.35 s, 95% CI [51.81 s, 60.90 s] in ST. Motor control was superior to the control with a MD = −2.44, 95% CI [−3.10, −1.79] in NPRS; MD = −8.32, 95% CI [−13.43, −3.22] in ODI; and MD = −3.58, 95% CI [−5.13, −2.03] in RMDQ. Isometric and motor control methods can effectively reduce pain and disability, with the isometric method reducing re-injury risk.

show abstract