CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 223Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyPregnancy-related medical research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 111 of the 112 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An update of stabilisation exercises for low back pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Open access
Smith, Benjamin E, Littlewood, Chris, May, Stephen·2014·BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-15-416PMC PMC4295260
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) is a large and costly problem. It has a lifetime prevalence of 80% and results in high levels of healthcare cost. It is a major cause for long term sickness amongst the workforce and is associated with high levels of fear avoidance and kinesiophobia. Stabilisation (or 'core stability') exercises have been suggested to reduce symptoms of pain and disability and form an effective treatment. Despite it being the most commonly used form of physiotherapy treatment within the UK there is a lack of positive evidence to support its use. The aims of this systematic review update is to investigate the effectiveness of stabilisation exercises for the treatment of NSLBP, and compare any effectiveness to other forms of exercise. METHODS: A systematic review published in 2008 was updated with a search of PubMed, CINAHL, AMED, Pedro and The Cochrane Library, October 2006 to October 2013. Two authors independently selected studies, and two authors independently extracted the data. Methodological quality was evaluated using the PEDro scale. Meta-analysis was carried out when appropriate. RESULTS: 29 studies were included: 22 studies (n = 2,258) provided post treatment effect on pain and 24 studies (n = 2,359) provided post treatment effect on disability. Pain and disability scores were transformed to a 0 to 100 scale. Meta-analysis showed significant benefit for stabilisation exercises versus any alternative treatment or control for long term pain and disability with mean difference of -6.39 (95% CI -10.14 to -2.65) and -3.92 (95% CI -7.25 to -0.59) respectively. The difference between groups was clinically insignificant. When compared with alternative forms of exercise, there was no statistical or clinically significant difference. Mean difference for pain was -3.06 (95% CI -6.74 to 0.63) and disability -1.89 (95% CI -5.10 to 1.33). CONCLUSION: There is strong evidence stabilisation exercises are not more effective than any other form of active exercise in the long term. The low levels of heterogeneity and large number of high methodological quality of available studies, at long term follow-up, strengthen our current findings, and further research is unlikely to considerably alter this conclusion.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2474-15-416

Cites

111 of 111 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Study selection process.
Figure 1 Study selection process.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Forest plot of stabilisation versus alternative intervention: pain - long term. *Negative values favour stabilisation intervention, positive favour control.
Figure 2 Forest plot of stabilisation versus alternative intervention: pain - long term. *Negative values favour stabilisation intervention, positive favour control.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Forest plot of stabilisation versus other exercises: pain - long term. *Negative values favour stabilisation intervention, positive favour control.
Figure 3 Forest plot of stabilisation versus other exercises: pain - long term. *Negative values favour stabilisation intervention, positive favour control.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Forest plot of stabilisation versus alternative intervention: disability - long term. *Negative values favour stabilisation intervention, positive favour control.
Figure 4 Forest plot of stabilisation versus alternative intervention: disability - long term. *Negative values favour stabilisation intervention, positive favour control.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Forest plot of stabilisation versus other exercises: disability - long term. *Negative values favour stabilisation intervention, positive favour control.
Figure 5 Forest plot of stabilisation versus other exercises: disability - long term. *Negative values favour stabilisation intervention, positive favour control.CC BY · PubMed Central

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

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?

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 112 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Low Back Pain. Early Management of Persistent Non-Specific Low Back Pain [CG88]. 2009
  2. Department of Health (DoH): The NHS Plan: A Plan for Investment a Plan for Reform. 2000, 82-
  3. Norris C: Back Stability. 2000, Leeds: Human Kinetics Europe Ltd
  4. Higgins J, Deeks J: Cochrane Handbook: General Methods For Cochrane Reviews: Ch 7: Selecting Studies and Collecting Data. Cochrane Handb Syst Rev Interv. Volume 6. Edited by: Higgins PTJ, Green S. 2011, Wiley-Blackwell, 151-186. [Cochrane Book Series]
  5. Xueqiang W, Jiejiao Z, Xia B, Jing L: Effect of core stability training on patients with chronic low back pain. HealthMED. 2012, 6: 754-759.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 223

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Smith, B. E., Littlewood, C., & May, S.
Affiliations
  • London Road Community Hospital (GB)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • Sheffield Hallam University (GB)
Corresponding author
Smith, Benjamin E
ORCID
Venue
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2014-12
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
416-416
ISSN
1471-2474 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1471-2474-15-416
PMC
PMC4295260
OpenAlex
W2069264694
Cited by
207
References
112
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 4
FWCI
1.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • SHURA (Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive) (Sheffield Hallam University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Edge Hill University Research Information Repository (Edge Hill University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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
non-specific low back pain, core stability, physiotherapy, exercise therapy, pain, disability, long-term outcomes, treatment effectiveness
MeSH terms
Exercise Therapy, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Low Back 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