The Comparison of Scar Mobilization Techniques with and without Core Stability Exercises on Scar Tissue Mobility and Lumbopelvic Pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abdominal adhesions and lumbopelvic pain can occur after a caesarean section. Many treatment approaches, such as injections, massage, surgical release, soft tissue release, strengthening, stretching and core stability exercises are available for abdominal scars. Physiotherapy treatments are considered safer and more convenient. The study aims to compare the effects of scar mobilization techniques with and without core stability exercises on scar tissue mobility and lumbopelvic pain. The study was a randomized clinical trial conducted at the Rafiqa Hospital and Fatima Hospital, Sargodha, Pakistan. A sample of 30 participants was allocated in Group A and B. Group A received scar mobilization and core stability exercises, while Group B received only scar mobilization, with both groups undergoing 3 sessions per week for total three weeks. The groups were assessed at baseline after the 5th and 9th sessions, using Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (ODI), Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Manual Scar Mobility Testing (MSMT), and Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS). Moreover, the data were analyzed using SPSS 25. The mean age of participants was 27.22 ± 4.21, and their body mass index was 27.10 ± 3.53. Both groups showed significant differences within the subject’s scores of disability, pain and scar mobility (p<0.05). Between-group comparison of both groups at post-treatment II showed considerable improvement in pain scores (NPRS score, p<0.05). Whereas non-significant results were in other outcome measures (disability and scar mobility p>0.05) in post-treatment II. Scar mobilization techniques with core stability exercises were more effective than scar mobilization techniques alone in the conservative treatment of females with lumbopelvic and scar pain after caesarean section.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".