Comparing the effectiveness of group-based exercise to other non-pharmacological interventions for chronic low back pain: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of disability worldwide with a substantial financial burden on individuals and health care systems. To address this, clinical practice guidelines often recommend non-pharmacological, non-invasive management approaches. One management approach that has been recommended and widely implemented for chronic LBP is group-based exercise programs, however, their clinical value compared with other non-pharmacological interventions has not been investigated systematically. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of group-based exercise with other non-pharmacological interventions in people with chronic LBP. METHODS: Four electronic databases were searched by two independent reviewers. Only randomized controlled trials that compared group-based exercise with other non-pharmacological interventions for chronic LBP were eligible. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of Interventions by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: Eleven studies were eligible. We identified strong evidence of no difference between group exercise and other non-pharmacologic interventions for disability level and pain scores 3-month post-intervention in people with chronic LBP. We could not find any strong or moderate evidence for or against the use of group-based exercise in the rehabilitation of people with chronic LBP for other time-points and health measurement outcomes. We found no statistically significant differences in disability and quality of life and pain between the group and individual non-pharmacological interventions that included exercise. CONCLUSION: With this equivocal finding, group-based exercise may be a preferred choice given potential advantages in other domains not reviewed here such as motivation and cost. Further research in this area is needed to evaluate this possibility.
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 | 0.013 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".