MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7084050116 · doi:10.30476/whb.2025.106260.1344

The Effect of Pain Neuroscience Education with Motor Control and Core Stability Exercises on Non-Specific Chronic Low Back Pain in Women

2025· article· en· W7084050116 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDrilling and Well Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCore stabilityLow back painTrunkQuality of life (healthcare)Core (optical fiber)Visual analogue scaleMotor controlAnkle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Non-specific chronic low back pain (CLBP) is a prevalent health issue, particularly among women. This study examined the effects of pain neuroscience education (PNE) combined with motor control exercise (MCE) and core stability exercises (CSE) on pain, function, and quality of life of women with non-specific CLBP.Methods: The present study used a pre-post intervention design with three parallel comparison groups. From the target population, 45 women with non-specific CLBP were selected using convenience sampling technique. Then, they were randomly assigned to three groups of 15 including PNE with MCE, CSE, and control group. In the pre-test phase, pain intensity was measured with the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), muscle function was measured using the McGill tests, and women’s quality of life was measured using the SF-36 Quality of Life questionnaire. The study was conducted in Urmia, Iran, in 2024. Subsequently, the experimental groups performed the exercises for eight weeks. Then, in the post-test phase, the factors measured in the pre-test phase were remeasured. Also, to analyze the data, paired sample t-tests and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to examine within and between group effects, respectively.Results: Both the PNE+MCE and CSE groups showed significant reductions in pain (Mean Difference (MD=) -2.93, P=0.001; MD=-1.08, P=0.005) and disability (MD=-7.25, P=0.001; MD=-3.93, P=0.001), along with improvements in trunk flexor endurance (MD=+11.31, P=0.001; MD=+5.44, P=0.001), trunk extensor endurance (MD=+14.68, P=0.001 MD=+4.41, P=0.001), quality of life (MD=+20.43, P=0.001; MD=+9.99, P=0.001), side plank (MD=10.41, P=0.001; MD=4.86, P=0.001), and elbow plank (MD=8.75, P=0.001 MD=5.13, P=0.001). Significant between-group differences were observed for all outcomes, with the PNE+MCE group demonstrating superior improvements over both CSE and control groups in pain (2.93 vs 1.08 vs -0.31), disability (7.25 vs 3.93 vs -0.40), trunk endurance (flexors: 11.31 vs 5.44 vs -1.27; extensors: 14.68 vs 4.41 vs -0.12), quality of life (20.43 vs 9.99 vs -3.23), side plank (10.41 vs 4.86 vs -0.85) and elbow plank (8.75 vs 5.13 vs -0.11), respectively.Conclusions: This study showed that PNE along with MCE plays an important role in managing pain and functional disability in women with non-specific CLBP. In addition, these findings suggested that this combined approach can help improve muscle function and quality of life for 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicDrilling and Well Engineering→French-language works237,207→