The Effect of a 10-Week Electromyostimulation Intervention with the StimaWELL 120MTRS System on Multifidus Morphology and Function in Chronic Low Back Pain Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) patients present with morphological and functional deficits to the lumbar multifidus. Electromyostimulation (EMS) can be used to improve activation and strength in atrophied skeletal muscle, but its effect on multifidus morphology and function in CLBP patients is understudied. The aims of this study were to compare the effect of two EMS protocols on lumbar multifidus morphology, function, and patient-reported outcomes. Methods: Two-arm randomized control trial (RCT). Individuals with CLBP were randomized to receive either the ‘phasic’ or ‘combined’ muscle therapy protocol with the StimaWELL 120MTRS, a medium-frequency EMS device. T-tests and non-parametric equivalents were used to assess change in imaging-based outcomes, and a repeated-measures ANOVA was used for patient-reported outcomes. Results: Apart from a significant within-group decrease in fatty infiltration at left L5-S1 in the combined group (MD = −1.51, 95% CI = −2.79, −0.23, p = 0.024), results revealed no significant within- or between-group changes to multifidus morphology or function. Pairwise comparisons revealed that both groups experienced significant improvements in multiple pain outcome measures, with a significant group*time effect for LBP with sitting (p = 0.019) and pain interference (p = 0.032) in favor of the phasic group. Additionally, there were significant improvements in the phasic group in disability, pain interference, and pain catastrophizing (all p < 0.01). Conclusions: A 10-week EMS intervention produced no between-group differences in multifidus muscle morphology or function. Participants in both groups experienced significant improvements in a variety of patient-reported outcomes.
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) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".