Ten-Year Follow-up of Strengthening Versus Flexibility Exercises With or Without Abdominal Bracing in Recurrent Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Randomized prevention trial. OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term effect of strengthening versus flexibility exercises and to evaluate the additional effect of abdominal bracing in recurrent low back pain (LBP). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: No conclusions could be made regarding appropriate exercise types or parameters in recurrent LBP. Abdominal bracing increases trunk stiffness; however, its long-term effect has not been evaluated in recurrent LBP yet. METHODS: Six hundred patients with recurrent LBP participated. They were randomized into 4 groups-150 patients (age: 42.5 ± 12.7) performed strengthening exercises; 150 patients (age: 41.3 ± 11.5) performed flexibility exercises; 150 patients (age: 41.0 ± 13.2) performed strengthening exercises and used abdominal bracing in daily activities/exercises; and 150 patients (age: 40.6 ± 12.3) performed flexibility exercises and used abdominal bracing in daily activities/exercises. At the beginning of the study and at the end of 10 consecutive years were recorded 6 outcomes-frequency, intensity, and duration of pain, as well as frequency, intensity, and duration of exercises. RESULTS: Regarding the first 4 outcomes-all groups showed improvement from the beginning to the second year, but worsening from the second to the 10th year; there was no difference between strengthening and flexibility groups; bracing groups showed better results versus nonbracing groups. Intensity, frequency, and duration of the pain correlated with each other and with frequency of the exercises, but not with exercise duration or intensity. CONCLUSION: The exercise frequency is more important than the type, duration, or intensity of the exercise. Abdominal bracing adds to the exercise effect. It could be considered as a "preliminary muscle back belt on demand" increasing the trunk stiffness and the frequency of the trunk muscle contractions/cocontractions without interruption of daily activities, which may remind/convince the patients to exercise more frequently. Frequent exercising and bracing seems effective long-term prevention advices in recurrent LBP. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".