Effectiveness of Dynamic Neuromuscular Stabilisation for the Change of Posture Indicators of 7–10-Year-Old Girls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Postural disorders are becoming an increasingly common issue among school-aged children and adolescents, with a prevalence of 34–50% in Europe. Although the effects of physiotherapy methods on postural correction are widely researched, there is a lack of studies analysing the impact of dynamic neuromuscular stabilisation (DNS) exercises on children’s posture. Aim. To evaluate the effectiveness of a six-week DNS programme on trunk functional stability, spinal curvatures and pelvic tilt angle, static trunk muscle endurance, scapular positioning, and static and dynamic balance in girls aged 7–10 years. Methods. The study included 16 female participants with a mean age of 8 ± 1.61 years. Assessments were conducted twice: before and after the DNS intervention. Trunk functional stability was evaluated using the Matthiass Test; spinal curvatures and pelvic tilt were assessed using the DIERS Formetric 4D posture analysis system. Static trunk muscle endurance was measured with the McGill Test, scapular positioning was evaluated using the Lennie Test, and static balance was assessed using the Flamingo Balance Test. Dynamic balance was evaluated with the Y Balance Test. Results. Following the DNS intervention, the Matthiass Test showed a trend toward improved trunk functional stability, although the differences were not statistically significant. No significant changes in spinal curvatures or pelvic alignment were observed using the DIERS system. Static endurance of all trunk muscle groups significantly increased after the intervention (p < 0.05), with some inter-muscular endurance ratios also showing significant improvements. No significant changes were found in scapular positioning. Static balance significantly improved when standing on the right leg (p < 0.05). In the dynamic balance assessment, significant improvement was observed only in the backward-medial and backward-lateral reach directions (p < 0.05), regardless of limb dominance. Conclusions. The DNS programme improved static trunk muscle endurance and both static and dynamic balance in girls aged 7–10 years but had no significant effect on trunk functional stability, spinal curvature angles, or pelvic tilt positioning. Keywords: posture; spinal curves; dynamic neuromuscular stabilisation
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".