Effects of McGill stabilization exercises and conventional physiotherapy on pain, functional disability and active back range of motion in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[Purpose] The aim of this study was to compare the effects of "McGill stabilization exercises" and "conventional physiotherapy" on pain, functional disability and active back flexion and extension range of motion in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. [Subjects and Methods] Thirty four patients with chronic non-specific low back pain were randomly assigned to McGill stabilization exercises group (n=17) and conventional physiotherapy group (n=17). In both groups, patients performed the corresponding exercises for six weeks. The visual analog scale (VAS), Quebec Low Back Pain Disability Scale Questionnaire and inclinometer were used to measure pain, functional disability, and active back flexion and extension range of motion, respectively. [Results] Statistically significant improvements were observed in pain, functional disability, and active back extension range of motion in McGill stabilization exercises group. However, active back flexion range of motion was the only clinical symptom that statistically increased in patients who performed conventional physiotherapy. There was no significant difference between the clinical characteristics while compared these two groups of patients. [Conclusion] The results of this study indicated that McGill stabilization exercises and conventional physiotherapy provided approximately similar improvement in pain, functional disability, and active back range of motion in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. However, it appears that McGill stabilization exercises provide an additional benefit to patients with chronic non-specific low back, especially in pain and functional disability improvement.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".