Efficacy of Aerobic Exercise for Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A meta-analysis of relevant cohort studies was performed to investigate the efficacy of aerobic exercise for the treatment of patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). METHOD: A range of electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE (1966-2013), the Cochrane Library Database (issue 12, 2013), EMBASE (1980-2013), CINAHL (1982-2013), Web of Science (1945~2013), and the Chinese Biomedical Database (1982-2013), without language restrictions. The Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, the Oswestry Disability Questionnaire, the McGill Pain Questionnaire, visual analog scale, and heart rate, sit-and-reach test, and maximum oxygen consumption were used to evaluate the efficacy of aerobic exercise. Meta-analysis was performed with the use of the STATA statistical software. The standardized mean difference (SMD) with its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Eight clinical cohort studies with a total of 310 CLBP patients were included in the meta-analysis. RESULTS: The results of this meta-analysis indicated that CLBP patients exhibited positive decreases in scores on the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (SMD, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.20-0.68; P < 0.001), Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (SMD, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.67-1.39; P < 0.001), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (SMD, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.34-2.37; P = 0.009), and McGill Pain Questionnaire (SMD, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.07-0.56; P = 0.011) after aerobic exercise. It was also observed that aerobic exercise could markedly reduce the visual analog scale score for pain of CLBP patients (SMD, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.48-1.02; P < 0.001). Nevertheless, this study's findings showed that aerobic exercise had no effects on heart rate, sit-and-reach test, and maximum oxygen consumption of CLBP patients (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The current meta-analysis provides reliable evidence that aerobic exercise could effectively diminish pain intensity and improve the physical and psychologic functioning of CLBP patients. Thus, aerobic exercise may be a good choice in the treatment for CLBP.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".