Effects of McGill Stabilization Exercise on pain and disability, range of motion and dynamic balance indices in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: According to McGill's new therapeutic exercise protocol for the purpose of low back pain treatment, and not investigating these exercises on balance, the present study was performed to aim to investigate the effect of McGill stabilization exercises and conventional physiotherapy exercises on dynamic balance indices, pain, disability and range of motion in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain. METHODS: Thirty patients with chronic non-specific low back pain were randomly assigned to the McGill stabilization exercises group (n=15) and conventional physiotherapy group (n=15). Participants performed 30 repeatitions for each session and three sessions per week for six weeks. In both groups, patients performed the corresponding exercises for six weeks. The visual analog scale (VAS), Quebec Low Back Pain Disability Scale questionnaire, inclinometer and Biodex Balance System were used to measure pain, functional disability, and active thoracolumbar range of motion variables and postural balance indeces (Anteroposerior Stability Index, Mediolateral Stability Index ,and Overall Stability Index), respectively. The study data were collected before and after training and also all the variables were followed for one month. FINDINGS: The significant differences were not observed in pain, disability and range of motion between the two groups (p>0.05). In the dynamic postural stability variables, in Anteroposerior Stability Index (0.31±0.20), Mediolateral Stability Index (0.23±0.22), and Overall Stability Index (0.41±0.30) significantly changes were observed in three indeces (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: McGill stabilization exercises may improve more effective dynamic postural balance variables to maintain balance in daily activities such as walking.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".