The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Evidence for Use of an Extension-Mobilization Category in Acute Low Back Syndrome: A Prescriptive Validation Pilot Study
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The prescriptive validity of a treatment-oriented extension-mobilization category for patients with low back syndrome (LBS) was examined. SUBJECTS: Of a total of 39 patients with LBS referred for physical therapy, 24 patients (14 male, 10 female), aged 14 to 50 years (means = 31.3, SD = 11.6), were classified as having signs and symptoms indicating treatment with an extension-mobilization approach. The remaining subjects were dismissed from the study. Patients in the extension-mobilization category were randomly assigned to either an experimental (treatment) group (n = 14) or a comparison group (n = 10). METHODS: The experimental and comparison group subjects were treated with either mobilization and extension (a treatment matched to the category) or a flexion exercise regimen (an unmatched treatment). Outcome was assessed with a modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Questionnaire administered initially and at 3 and 5 days after initiation of treatment. Data were analyzed with a 2 x 3 (treatment group x treatment period) analysis of variance. RESULTS: The subjects' rate of improvement, as indicated by the Oswestry questionnaire scores, was dependent on the treatment group to which they were assigned. Subjects treated with extension and mobilization positively responded at a faster rate than did those treated with a flexion-oriented program. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION: This study illustrates that a priori classification of selected patients with LBS into a treatment category of extension and mobilization and subsequently treating the patients accordingly with specified interventions can be an effective approach to conservative management of selected patients.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Exercise therapy for treatment of non-specific low back pain
Hayden, J., van Tulder, M. W., Malmivaara, A., & Koes, B. W. (2005) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000335.pub2 · Cited by 879
Hicks, G. E., Fritz, J. M., Delitto, A., & McGill, S. M. (2005) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2005.03.033 · Cited by 621
Meta-Analysis: Exercise Therapy for Nonspecific Low Back Pain
Hayden, J. A., van Tulder, M. W., Malmivaara, A. V., & Koes, B. W. (2005) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-142-9-200505030-00013 · Cited by 611
van Tulder, M., Malmivaara, A., Esmail, R., & Koes, B. (2000) · Spine · doi:10.1097/00007632-200011010-00011 · Cited by 567
Brennan, G. P., Fritz, J. M., Hunter, S. J., Thackeray, A., Delitto, A., & Erhard, R. E. (2006) · Spine · doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000202807.72292.a8 · Cited by 448
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Delitto, A., Cibulka, M. T., Erhard, R. E., Bowling, R. W., & Tenhula, J. A.
- Venue
- Physical Therapy
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1993-04-01
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 216-222
- ISSN
- 0031-9023 (ISSN-L)
- 1538-6724
- OpenAlex
- W2111114788
- Cited by
- 226
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.19
- 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: Evidence for Use of an Extension-Mobilization Category in Acute Low Back Syndrome: A Prescriptive Validation Pilot Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/ptj/73.4.216
- The paper
- Delitto, A., Cibulka, M. T., Erhard, R. E., Bowling, R. W., & Tenhula, J. A. (1993). Evidence for Use of an Extension-Mobilization Category in Acute Low Back Syndrome: A Prescriptive Validation Pilot Study. Physical Therapy. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/73.4.216
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.