Exercise, Manual Therapy, and Education with or Without High-Intensity Deep-Water Running for Nonspecific Chronic Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study on persons with nonspecific chronic low back pain was to evaluate the effect of a multimodal physical therapy program with or without the addition of deep-water running on pain, physical disability, and general health. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial involving 46 subjects with nonspecific chronic low back pain were treated three times a week for 15 wks. Each group received 60 mins of multimodal physical therapy program (an individualized exercise program; manual therapy; and back care, pain education, and information on an active lifestyle), whereas one group performed additional 20-min sessions of deep-water running at an individual workload of the aerobic threshold. RESULTS: Both interventions resulted in significant improvements in pain, disability, and physical health. The mean change in pain, disability, and physical health state were -36.1 ± 25.1 mm on the visual analog scale, -3.0 ± 4.8 points for the Roland Morris Questionnaire, and 10.6 ± 12.9 points for the Short Form-12 for the physical therapy plus deep-water running group and -34.1 ± 26.0 mm on the visual analog scale, -1.6 ± 1.5 points for the Roland Morris Questionnaire, and 8.9 ± 13.0 points for the Short Form-12 for the physical therapy alone group. CONCLUSIONS: Pain, disability, health status, muscle strength and endurance, and lumbar range of motion significantly improved in both groups. The addition of a deep-water running program at an individual workload of the aerobic threshold to the multimodal physical therapy program produced a significant improvement in pain in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain, but this was not significantly different when compared with multimodal physical therapy program alone. Disability, health status, muscle strength and endurance, and lumbar range of motion significantly improved to a similar level in both intervention groups.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".