Effectiveness of Three-Dimensional Myofascial Release on Lumbar Lordosis in Individuals with Asymptomatic Hyperlordosis: A Placebo Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Lumbar hyperlordosis is the most prevalent musculoskeletal postural deformity. Maintenance of normal limits of lumbar lordosis is necessary for obtaining an ideal posture. Literature suggests that poor posture results in fascial restriction in which the fascia reorganizes in response to tension. Gross myofascial release (MFR) combined with posterior pelvic tilting exercises proved to be beneficial in improving the lumbar range of motion. Three-dimensional (3D) MFR is a novel approach toward reducing fascial restrictions. However, the literature determining the effects of 3D MFR is still emerging. Aim: To determine the effect of 3D MFR on a lumbar lordosis angle and lumbar range of motion, in individuals with asymptomatic hyperlordosis. Method: Participants (n = 30) with hyperlordosis were randomly assigned to either the experimental group receiving 3D MFR (n = 15) or the control group (n = 15) that received sham 3D MFR for six sessions (3 alternate days for 2 weeks). The outcomes were assessed at day 1 and day 6. Lumbar range of motion was assessed using modified-modified Schober's test and the lumbar lordosis angle was measured using x-ray and flexicurve. Results: There was significant decrease (p = 0.0001) in the lumbar lordosis angle, increase in the lumbar flexion (p = 0.0001), and decrease in the extension (p = 0.0011) range of motion in the experimental group when compared to the control group. Conclusion: Lumbar lordosis decreased and the lumbar range of motion increased in the experimental group only with 3D MFR and not with sham 3D MFR. Hence, 3D MFR is an effective method in the correction of lumbar hyperlordosis and improving the lumbar range.Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI) trial number
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".