The Effectiveness of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Approaches in Low Back Pain on Pain Severity and Disability; A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to review the efficacy of physical therapy and rehabilitation approaches for low back pain, focusing on pain intensity and disability. A survey of the literature was done in PubMed and Web of Science databases up to January 30, 2024. English studies were required, using keywords: “low back pain,” “pain intensity,” “pain severity,” “disability,” and “physical therapy.” Pain intensity was measured using the Visual Analog Scale and Numeric Rating Scale, including the 11-point Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale. Disability was assessed using Activities of Daily Living, Instrumental Activities of Daily Living scales, Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, and Oswestry Disability Index. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria from 665 initial records. Interventions included osteopathic manipulative treatment, core muscle exercise with interferential current, cognitive functional therapy, dry cupping therapy, high-intensity machine-based core muscle resistance training,heat therapy, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, pelvic traction, Reiki, dynamic muscular stabilization technique, and McGill Big 3. Sample sizes ranged from 30 to 1090 participants. Interferential current combined with core muscle exercises significantly reduced pain intensity compared to each method alone, though not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The high-intensity machine-based core muscle resistance training program group had greater pain relief (P0.05). Dry cupping did not outperform sham cupping. Cognitive functional therapy reduced absenteeism in the first two years but not later. Reiki showed significant improvement in pain and Activities of Daily Living compared to drug therapy, but not to physiotherapy. Physical therapy interventions effectively alleviate symptoms and enhance results for low back pain. However, variability in interventions and outcome measures necessitates cautious interpretation. Further research with standardized protocols is essential to understand the effectiveness and optimal duration of physical therapy for Low Back Pain.
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 | 0.012 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".