CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 165Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyPregnancy-related medical research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Stabilizing training compared with manual treatment in sub-acute and chronic low-back pain

Rasmussen-Barr, E, Nilsson-Wikmar, L, Arvidsson, I·2003·Manual Therapy
DOI 10.1016/s1356-689x(03)00053-5
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The present aim was to compare the effects of stabilizing training with those of manual treatment in patients with sub-acute or chronic low-back pain (LBP). Forty-seven patients were randomized to a stabilizing training group (ST group) or a manual treatment group (MT group). The patients underwent a 6-week treatment programme on a weekly basis. Pain, health and functional disability level at the start of treatment, after treatment, and at 3- and 12-month follow-ups were assessed. In the ST group all assessed variables improved significantly (P<0.05) after the treatment period and were maintained long term. After the treatment period there was a significant difference between the groups in assessed function (P<0.05). More individuals in the ST group had improved than in the MT group. At the 3-month follow-up significantly more improved individuals were evident in the ST group regarding pain, general health and functional disability levels. In the long term, significantly more (P<0.05) patients in the MT group reported recurrent treatment periods. The study did not indicate any clear short-term differences between the groups in the accessed outcome measures. In the long term, however, stabilizing training seemed to be more effective than manual treatment in terms of improvement of individuals and the reduced need for recurrent treatment periods.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1356-689x(03)00053-5

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 165

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Rasmussen-Barr, E., Nilsson-Wikmar, L., & Arvidsson, I.
Affiliations
Karolinska Institutet (SE)
ORCID
Venue
Manual Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-11
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
233-241
ISSN
1356-689X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s1356-689x(03)00053-5
OpenAlex
W2082024962
Cited by
165
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 9
FWCI
4.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Manual Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Pregnancy-related medical research
Keywords
low back pain, subacute low back pain, chronic low back pain, functional disability, pain, health-related quality of life, long-term outcomes
MeSH terms
Acute Disease, Adult, Chronic Disease, Disability Evaluation, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pain Measurement, Time Factors, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Low Back Pain, Manipulation, Spinal, Exercise Movement Techniques

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