Cited by 555Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationPregnancy-related medical researchSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology

Exercise interventions for the treatment of chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Searle, Angela, Spink, Martin, Ho, Alan, Chuter, Vivienne·2015·Clinical Rehabilitation

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine, for adults with chronic low back pain, which exercise interventions are the most effective at reducing pain compared to other treatments. DATA SOURCES: A search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library was conducted up to October 2014. REVIEW METHODS: Databases were searched for published reports of randomised trials that investigated the treatment of chronic low back pain of non-specific origin with an exercise intervention. Two authors independently reviewed and selected relevant trials. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Downs and Black tool. RESULTS: Forty-five trials met the inclusion criteria and thirty-nine were included in the meta-analysis. Combined meta-analysis revealed significantly lower chronic low back pain with intervention groups using exercise compared to a control group or other treatment group (Standard Mean Deviation (SMD) =-0.32, CI 95% -0.44 to -0.19, P<0.01). Separate exploratory subgroup analysis showed a significant effect for strength/resistance and coordination/stabilisation programs. CONCLUSIONS: Our results found a beneficial effect for strength/resistance and coordination/stabilisation exercise programs over other interventions in the treatment of chronic low back pain and that cardiorespiratory and combined exercise programs are ineffective.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0269215515570379

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Searle, A., Spink, M., Ho, A., & Chuter, V.
Affiliations
University of Newcastle Australia (AU)
Corresponding author
Searle, Angela
Venue
Clinical Rehabilitation
Published
2015-02-13
Volume
29
Issue
12
Pages
1155-1167
ISSN
  • 0269-2155 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0873
OpenAlex
W2149320717
Cited by
555
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 76 · 2021: 72 · 2020: 63 · 2019: 63 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 10
FWCI
4.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pregnancy-related medical research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Keywords
chronic low back pain, exercise intervention, non-specific low back pain, cardiorespiratory exercise, analgesia, exercise therapy effectiveness
MeSH terms
Exercise Therapy, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Low Back Pain, Chronic Pain

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