The effect of a course of “barre au sol” exercises on pain, endurance, and movement patterns of men with nonspecific chronic low back pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and aims: Low back pain is one of the most common reports among people in society. The present study aimed to determine the effect of a course of “Barre au sol” exercise on pain, endurance, and movement patterns of men with non-specific chronic back pain. Methods: Totally, 26 middle-aged men (30-45 years old) with nonspecificchronic back pain were purposefully selected and randomly divided into two experimental (n=13) and control (n=13) groups. The “Functional Movement Screen” (FMS) and “Nine Test Screening Battery” (9TSB), McGill Torso Endurance Tests, and visual pain scale (VAS) were used to check movement patterns, trunk endurance, and pain levels of participants, respectively. Both groups received common physiotherapy treatments (posture correction in different postures and physiotherapy modalities). In addition to these treatments, the experimental group participated in the Barre au sol training program for eight weeks (three sessions per week and one hour per session). In the present study, the covariance test was used for between-group comparison and the correlated t-test was used for within-group comparison. Results: The results of the study show the effect of exercise program on reducing pain (p≤0.01), improving trunk endurance (p≤0.01), FMS screening tests (p≤0.01) and 9TSB (p≤0.01). Conclusion: Barre au sol exercises have been effective in reducing pain, improving trunk endurance, and functional screening tests in patients with non-specific chronic back pain. Based on this, it is recommended to use this exercise program to reduce pain and generally improve performance for these patients.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".