Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 450

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of general exercise, motor control exercise and spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain: A randomized trial

Ferreira, Manuela L., Ferreira, Paulo H., Latimer, Jane, Herbert, Robert D., Hodges, Paul W., Jennings, Matthew D., Maher, Christopher G., Refshauge, Kathryn M.·2007·Pain
DOI 10.1016/j.pain.2006.12.008
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Practice guidelines recommend various types of exercise and manipulative therapy for chronic back pain but there have been few head-to-head comparisons of these interventions. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare effects of general exercise, motor control exercise and manipulative therapy on function and perceived effect of intervention in patients with chronic back pain. Two hundred and forty adults with non-specific low back pain 3months were allocated to groups that received 8weeks of general exercise, motor control exercise or spinal manipulative therapy. General exercise included strengthening, stretching and aerobic exercises. Motor control exercise involved retraining specific trunk muscles using ultrasound feedback. Spinal manipulative therapy included joint mobilization and manipulation. Primary outcomes were patient-specific function (PSFS, 3-30) and global perceived effect (GPE, -5 to 5) at 8weeks. These outcomes were also measured at 6 and 12months. Follow-up was 93% at 8weeks and 88% at 6 and 12months. The motor control exercise group had slightly better outcomes than the general exercise group at 8weeks (between-group difference: PSFS 2.9, 95% CI: 0.9-4.8; GPE 1.7, 95% CI: 0.9-2.4), as did the spinal manipulative therapy group (PSFS 2.3, 95% CI: 0.4-4.2; GPE 1.2, 95% CI: 0.4-2.0). The groups had similar outcomes at 6 and 12months. Motor control exercise and spinal manipulative therapy produce slightly better short-term function and perceptions of effect than general exercise, but not better medium or long-term effects, in patients with chronic non-specific back pain.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pain.2006.12.008

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 13 references

Cited by

See all 450

Metadata

Authors
Ferreira, M. L., Ferreira, P. H., Latimer, J., Herbert, R. D., Hodges, P. W., Jennings, M. D., Maher, C. G., & Refshauge, K. M.
Venue
Pain
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2007-09
Volume
131
Issue
1
Pages
31-37
ISSN
0304-3959 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.pain.2006.12.008
OpenAlex
W1984460973
Cited by
450
References
13
FWCI
17.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of general exercise, motor control exercise and spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain: A randomized trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.pain.2006.12.008
The paper
Ferreira, M. L., Ferreira, P. H., Latimer, J., Herbert, R. D., Hodges, P. W., Jennings, M. D., Maher, C. G., & Refshauge, K. M. (2007). Comparison of general exercise, motor control exercise and spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain: A randomized trial. Pain. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2006.12.008

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.