The Effect of Segmental Stabilization Exercises on Pain, Disability and Static Postural Stability in Patients with Spondylolisthesis: A Double Blinded Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of stabilization and general exercises on pain, disability and postural stability variables in patients with spondylolisthesis. Methods. 24 patients randomly assigned into the stabilization (n=12) and general exercise (n=12) groups. Both groups performed the exercises 2 times a week for a period of 2 months. Visual analogue scale (VAS) and Quebec back pain disability questionnaire were used to assess the pain and functional disability, respectively. Postural stability has been evaluated using a force platform with eyes opened and closed while standing on firm and foam base of support. The parameters were the mean total velocity (M-V) and the SD of velocity in sagittal (SD-Vy) and frontal (SD-Vx) plan. Results. There was a significant decrease in VAS and Quebec in both stabilization and general exercise groups (P= 0.001, P< 0.001 for VAS and P= 0.001, P= 0.001 for Québec respectively). From postural stability parameters only SD-Vx has increases significantly in general exercise group (P= 0.008). More increase was observed in M-V variable in the stabilization group (P <0.001). Conclusions. Pain and disability were improved in both stabilization and general exercise groups but postural stability variables was not changed in different directions in stabilization group.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".