Comparison of Health Parameters in Postpartum Diastasis Recti: A Randomized Control Trial of SEMG Biofeedback-Assisted Core Strengthening Exercises with Kinesiotaping vs. Non-Assisted Exercises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current medical treatments for diastasis recti often involve exercises to strengthen the core muscles, along with abdominal binders or supports. However, there is limited evidence comparing the effectiveness of surface electromyography (SEMG) biofeedback-assisted core strengthening exercises combined with kinesiotaping to other approaches. This study aimed to assess the impact of three interventions on core strength, inter-rectus distance, and quality of life in postpartum women with diastasis recti. The interventions included core strengthening exercises with kinesiotaping and SEMG biofeedback-assisted core strengthening with kinesiotaping. This randomized controlled trial (NCT05897255) included 24 postpartum women divided into three groups. We measured inter-rectus distance, quality of life using the Short Form Health Survey 36, and core strength using the McGill torso battery test. The SEMG biofeedback provided auditory and visual cues. We used one-way analysis of variance to compare outcomes between groups, while a t-test for within-group analysis. Both the SEMG biofeedback-assisted and non-assisted core strengthening exercises with kinesiotaping groups showed significantly greater improvements in energy, bodily pain, general health, physical functioning, and limitations due to physical problems than the core strengthening group. Additionally, the SEMG biofeedback-assisted group demonstrated a greater reduction in inter-rectus distance. There were no statistically significant differences in core strength improvement among the three groups. Core strengthening exercises with SEMG-assisted kinesiotaping were superior to core strengthening alone in reducing inter-rectus distance, enhancing physical function, energy levels, and general health, and decreasing bodily pain and limitations due to physical problems. Core strength improvements were similar across all groups.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".