The evaluating of efficacy of Core Stabilization exercises, Massage and foot Reflexology on pain and disability of men with mechanical chronic low back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic low-back pain (CLBP) affects most people at some point in their lives. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of 3 methods which are popular and known as non-invasive way in rehabilitation of CLBP. 60 men in age of group 25-45 with CLBP were randomly divided into four groups (Core Stabilization, massage, reflexology and control) and instructed to perform Core Stabilization exercise for 8 week, massage and foot reflexology for 10 days. Patient were assessed by McGill pain questioner (MPQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), based on pain feeling and the ability to do routine activity of life before starting the study (Pre-test Data) and at the end of study procedure (post-test Data). Results were analyzed by Paired T test, one way ANOVA and Tukey post hock. There was no significantly difference in Pre-treatment session between the 4 groups. MPQ and ODI were significantly lower in post-treatment sessions as compared to pre-treatment values in experimental groups (Core Stabilization, massage and foot reflexology). Significant decrease in MPQ and ODI values were found in all experimental groups, but no difference in efficacy were found between these groups. However the result that reach from comparison between each of experimental group and control group, showed that the experimental groups were significantly effective. Core Stabilization exercise, massage and foot reflexology in men with mechanical chronic low-back pain reduce pain and improved disability. Researchers were not found any differences between these 3 methods as compare with each other. Due to the results, Authors suggest that may be using massage therapy or foot reflexology, for patients with CLBP, is better and more effective if therapists are looking for treating in shortest possible duration.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".