Mansueto Gomes-Neto1, Jordana Moura Lopes2, Cristiano Sena Conceição2, Anderson Araujo2, Alécio Brasileiro3, Camila Sousa2, Vitor Oliveira Carvalho4, Fabio Luciano Arcanjo2. 1. Physical Therapy Department, Federal University of Bahia - UFBA, Brazil; Programa de Pós Graduação em Medicina e Saúde - UFBA, Salvador, BA, Brazil; The GREAT Group (GRupo de Estudos em ATividade física), Brazil. Electronic address: mansueto.neto@ufba.br. 2. Physical Therapy Department, Federal University of Bahia - UFBA, Brazil. 3. AF-FISIOTERAPIA, Salvador, BA, Brazil. 4. The GREAT Group (GRupo de Estudos em ATividade física), Brazil; Physical Therapy Department, Federal University of Sergipe - UFS, Aracaju, SE, Brazil.
Abstract
AIM: We performed a systematic review with a meta-analysis to examine the efficacy of stabilization exercises versus general exercises or manual therapy in patients with low back pain. DESIGN: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Controlled Trials, Scielo, and CINAHL (from the earliest date available to November 2014) for randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy of stabilization exercises compared to general exercises or manual therapy on pain, disability, and function in patients with low back pain. Weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria (413 stabilization exercises patients, 297 general exercises patients, and 185 manual therapy patients). Stabilization exercises may provide greater benefit than general exercise for pain reduction and improvement in disability. Stabilization exercise improved pain with a WMD of -1.03 (95% CI: -1.29 to -0.27) and improved disability with a WMD of -5.41 (95% CI: -8.34 to -2.49). There were no significant differences in pain and disability scores among participants in the stabilization exercise group compared to those in the manual therapy group. CONCLUSIONS: Stabilization exercises were as efficacious as manual therapy in decreasing pain and disability and should be encouraged as part of musculoskeletal rehabilitation for low back pain.
AIM: We performed a systematic review with a meta-analysis to examine the efficacy of stabilization exercises versus general exercises or manual therapy in patients with low back pain. DESIGN: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Controlled Trials, Scielo, and CINAHL (from the earliest date available to November 2014) for randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy of stabilization exercises compared to general exercises or manual therapy on pain, disability, and function in patients with low back pain. Weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria (413 stabilization exercises patients, 297 general exercises patients, and 185 manual therapy patients). Stabilization exercises may provide greater benefit than general exercise for pain reduction and improvement in disability. Stabilization exercise improved pain with a WMD of -1.03 (95% CI: -1.29 to -0.27) and improved disability with a WMD of -5.41 (95% CI: -8.34 to -2.49). There were no significant differences in pain and disability scores among participants in the stabilization exercise group compared to those in the manual therapy group. CONCLUSIONS: Stabilization exercises were as efficacious as manual therapy in decreasing pain and disability and should be encouraged as part of musculoskeletal rehabilitation for low back pain.
Authors: Wilhelmus Johannes Andreas Grooten; Carina Boström; Åsa Dedering; Marie Halvorsen; Roman P Kuster; Lena Nilsson-Wikmar; Christina B Olsson; Graciela Rovner; Elena Tseli; Eva Rasmussen-Barr Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2022-08-22 Impact factor: 2.562
Authors: Crystal C Lozier; Shannon M Nugent; Ning X Smith; Bobbi Jo Yarborough; Steven K Dobscha; Richard A Deyo; Benjamin J Morasco Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Quenten L Hooker; Vanessa M Lanier; Kristen Roles; Linda R van Dillen Journal: Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) Date: 2022-01-03 Impact factor: 2.063