Effectiveness of a 10-week low back pain rehabilitation programme with and without bilateral blood flow restriction exercise; monitoring perceptions of pain and hypoalgesia effects.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background We compared the effectiveness of a 10-week, low back pain (LBP) rehabilitation programme, with and without bilateral blood flow restriction exercise (BFR-RE). Monitoring perceptions of pain (POP), LBP pressure pain thresholds (PPT), hemodynamic variables (HV) and distal hypoalgesia effects within the lumbar region. \nMethods 28 participants with LBP were block randomised (BFR-RE, n=14; Non BFR-RE, n=14) for this parallel-group, repeated measures study. Periodisation comprised 3 proprioceptive, endurance and strength phases of hip hinge and gluteal programming over 10-weeks, conducted twice weekly. Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) systematically regulated training load and resistance exercise (RE) protocols incorporated conventional hypertrophy and LBP rehabilitation methods, using BFR repetition guidelines. POP, PPT and HV were assessed pre-intervention - post session - post intervention, using the short form McGill pain questionnaire (SF-MPQ), pressure algometer (PA) and blood pressure monitor (BPM). \nResults 1 withdrawal left 27 completing participants (BFR n=14, Non-BFR n=13), with no adverse baseline characteristics. Significant interactions occurred between BFRE-RE treatment and time (F1 = 6.31, p = 0.03), reducing SF-MPQ values by 80%, 38% greater than Non-BFR (t12 = 02.51, p < 0.03). PPT’s increased over time (F1 = 10.35, p = 0.007), with no group differences (19 ± 0.10%) and main effects of treatment were insignificant for all HV (Systolic (SYS), F1 = 0.08, p = 0.08; Diastolic (DIA), F1 = 0.37, p = 0.55; Heart Rate (HR), F1 = 3.13, p = 0.10; Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP), F1 = 0.17, p = 0.69. \nConclusion BFR-RE affords LBP demographics who cannot tolerate load or are troubled by fear avoidance model (FAM) movement modifications, a rehabilitation method that reduces POP and enables corrective LBP exercise to be conducted with practitioners.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".