Immediate Effect of Lumbosacral Orthosis and Abdominal Drawing-In Maneuver on Postural Control in Adults With Nonspecific Chronic Low Back Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the immediate effects of lumbosacral orthosis and the abdominal drawing-in maneuver on the trunk postural control of adults with chronic low back pain compared with asymptomatic controls during 1-legged and semi-tandem stances. METHODS: An experimental and comparative study (cross-sectional design) was conducted in a laboratory setting. Twenty adults with chronic low back pain and 20 asymptomatic controls randomly performed 2 postural balance tasks over a force platform, considering 3 experimental conditions: (1) natural posture (baseline-control), (2) lumbosacral orthosis, and (3) abdominal drawing-in maneuver. Linear variables (mean amplitude, ellipse area, and sway velocity) derived from the center of pressure were computed, and 2-way analysis of variance (group × condition) for repeated measures were conducted. RESULTS: No group × condition interactions (.139 ≤ P ≤.938) were detected in any center of pressure parameters. No condition effect was detected, but a group effect (P = .042) was observed for 1 center of pressure parameter. The chronic low back pain group presented with a lower mean anteroposterior center of pressure amplitude than asymptomatic controls (∆ = 0.31 ± 0.66 cm [95% confidence interval, 0.05-0.56], P = .019) during the semi-tandem stance balance task. CONCLUSION: Neither lumbosacral orthosis nor the abdominal drawing-in maneuver showed immediate improvement in trunk postural control in any group. Thus, clinicians should not expect immediate benefits or improvements yielded by lumbosacral orthosis or the abdominal drawing-in maneuver when patients with chronic low back pain undergo these interventions.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".