MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of lumbar stabilization and muscular stretching on pain, disabilities, postural control and muscle activation in pregnant woman with low back pain

2020· article· en· W3008283860 on OpenAlex
Adriana Paula Fontana Carvalho, Sébastien S. Dufresne, Márcio Rogério de Oliveira, Karina Couto Furlanetto, Maryane Dubois, Mathieu Dallaire, Suzy Ngomo, Rubens Alexandre da Silva

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy-related medical research
Canadian institutionsCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Saguenay–Lac-Saint-JeanUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLumbarLow back painPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapySurgeryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is common during pregnancy. Lumbar stabilization and stretching exercises are recommended to treat low back pain in the general population. However, few studies have applied the effects of these two interventions in pregnant women with low back pain. AIM: To compare the effects of lumbar stabilization and stretching exercises for the treatment of gestational low back pain. DESIGN: A pilot randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Laboratory of Functional Evaluation and Human Motor Performance and physical therapy clinics. POPULATION: Initially, 30 pregnant women with low back pain were recruited, of which 24 met the following inclusion criteria: being between 19-29 weeks of gestation; being in prenatal clinical follow-up; having nonspecific mechanical low back pain started in pregnancy; not participating in specific low back pain treatment in the last 3 months. A total of 20 women completed the study (10 each group). METHODS: The main outcome measures were clinical (pain by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and McGill Pain Questionnaire and disability by Roland Morris Questionnaire), and secondary outcome measures were: postural balance (force platform); muscle activation level of multifidus, iliocostalis lumborum, rectus abdominis and external abdominal oblique (electromyography). The women were randomized into two groups for 6 weeks of intervention twice a week for a 50-minute treatment: 1) lumbar stabilization exercise protocol and 2) stretching exercise protocol. RESULTS: There was a significant reduction (P=0.03) in pain (1.68 in VAS and 4.81 for McGill questionnaire) for both interventions, but no change in disability score. In addition, both interventions were comparable for a significant improvement in postural stability (in mean d=0.77) for the velocity sway parameter, and significantly increased activation (P>0.05) of the external abdominal oblique muscle after intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Both modalities (lumbar stabilization and stretching) were efficient for pain reduction, improving balance and increasing one trunk activity muscle after 6 weeks of intervention in pregnant women with low back pain. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: The present study has implications, especially for clinical decision-making with regard to therapy choice in pregnant women with LBP to reduce pain and improve trunk function as measured through balance performance.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.798
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it