MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407842127 · doi:10.1186/s40798-025-00816-x

On the Role of Core Exercises in Alleviating Muscular Fatigue Induced by Prolonged Sitting: A Scoping Review

2025· review· en· W4407842127 on OpenAlexaff
Banafsheh Amiri, David Behm, Erika Zemková

Bibliographic record

VenueSports Medicine - Open · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersEuropean Regional Development FundSlovenská Akadémia ViedMinisterstvo školstva, vedy, výskumu a športu Slovenskej republikyAgentúra Ministerstva Školstva, Vedy, Výskumu a Športu SRInterregVedecká Grantová Agentúra MŠVVaŠ SR a SAVUniverzita Komenského v Bratislave
KeywordsSittingMedicineTrunkElectromyographyPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationCore (optical fiber)Erector spinae musclesCore stabilityBack musclesCochrane LibraryMuscle fatigueChecklistMeta-analysisPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Prolonged sitting induces fatigue in deep trunk muscles, thereby decreasing spinal support and increasing stress on the spine. Core exercises effectively facilitate recovery from trunk muscle fatigue based on evidence from subjective outcomes; however, there is a lack of systematic investigation into localized muscle activity specifically related to prolonged sitting. Therefore, this scoping review summarizes the evidence on the effects of core exercises in alleviating trunk muscular fatigue induced by prolonged sitting, focusing on objective outcomes such as electromyography (EMG) and tensiomyography. METHODS: Articles published between January 2010 and February 2024 were sought in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library, as well as Elsevier, SpringerLink, and Google Scholar. The findings were reported following the guidelines provided by the PRISMA-ScR checklist. RESULTS: Out of 106 papers initially identified, eight met the inclusion criteria. During core exercises, fatigued trunk muscles exhibit an increase in EMG root mean square (RMS) values. In the post-intervention (from 9 days to 8 weeks), tensiomyography outcomes of the erector spinae muscles significantly improved, whilst EMG results were insignificant. The contraction times of both the left and right erector spinae balanced out, indicating a harmonizing effect of the exercise. Regarding the recovery of other trunk muscles, only the transversus abdominis and internal oblique muscles exhibited a significant increase in the EMG median frequency that decreased over prolonged sitting. CONCLUSIONS: Core exercises are effective in alleviating muscular fatigue caused by prolonged sitting. This can be observed from significant changes in EMG and tensiomyography parameters during exercise and after the training protocol. Intervention studies have primarily targeted the recovery of the erector spinae muscles, with less attention on other trunk muscles. Although significant improvements in tensiomyography results for the erector spinae can be observed after core exercise intervention, the impact on EMG remains uncertain. KEY POINTS: 1. Core exercises have an acute effect on reducing muscle fatigue caused by prolonged sitting. 2. Core exercise intervention studies, primarily targeting the erector spinae muscles, significantly improve tensiomyography outcomes, but evidence for electromyography outcomes is lacking. In addition, few studies have analyzed the electromyography mean frequency and root mean square values, which are crucial in assessing muscle fatigue and recovery. 3. Only a few studies have investigated the effectiveness of core exercises in restoring other trunk muscles, such as the transversus abdominis and multifidus, following prolonged sitting fatigue.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.007
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.342 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSports Medicine - OpenSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207