IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0052082.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Meta-Analysis of Core Stability Exercise versus General Exercise for Chronic Low Back Pain

Author

Listed:
  • Xue-Qiang Wang
  • Jie-Jiao Zheng
  • Zhuo-Wei Yu
  • Xia Bi
  • Shu-Jie Lou
  • Jing Liu
  • Bin Cai
  • Ying-Hui Hua
  • Mark Wu
  • Mao-Ling Wei
  • Hai-Min Shen
  • Yi Chen
  • Yu-Jian Pan
  • Guo-Hui Xu
  • Pei-Jie Chen

Abstract

Objective: To review the effects of core stability exercise or general exercise for patients with chronic low back pain (LBP). Summary of Background Data: Exercise therapy appears to be effective at decreasing pain and improving function for patients with chronic LBP in practice guidelines. Core stability exercise is becoming increasingly popular for LBP. However, it is currently unknown whether core stability exercise produces more beneficial effects than general exercise in patients with chronic LBP. Methods: Published articles from 1970 to October 2011 were identified using electronic searches. For this meta-analysis, two reviewers independently selected relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating core stability exercise versus general exercise for the treatment of patients with chronic LBP. Data were extracted independently by the same two individuals who selected the studies. Results: From the 28 potentially relevant trials, a total of 5 trials involving 414 participants were included in the current analysis. The pooling revealed that core stability exercise was better than general exercise for reducing pain [mean difference (−1.29); 95% confidence interval (−2.47, −0.11); P = 0.003] and disability [mean difference (−7.14); 95% confidence interval (−11.64, −2.65); P = 0.002] at the time of the short-term follow-up. However, no significant differences were observed between core stability exercise and general exercise in reducing pain at 6 months [mean difference (−0.50); 95% confidence interval (−1.36, 0.36); P = 0.26] and 12 months [mean difference (−0.32); 95% confidence interval (−0.87, 0.23); P = 0.25]. Conclusions: Compared to general exercise, core stability exercise is more effective in decreasing pain and may improve physical function in patients with chronic LBP in the short term. However, no significant long-term differences in pain severity were observed between patients who engaged in core stability exercise versus those who engaged in general exercise. Systematic Review Registration: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO PROSPERO registration number: CRD42011001717.

Suggested Citation

  • Xue-Qiang Wang & Jie-Jiao Zheng & Zhuo-Wei Yu & Xia Bi & Shu-Jie Lou & Jing Liu & Bin Cai & Ying-Hui Hua & Mark Wu & Mao-Ling Wei & Hai-Min Shen & Yi Chen & Yu-Jian Pan & Guo-Hui Xu & Pei-Jie Chen, 2012. "A Meta-Analysis of Core Stability Exercise versus General Exercise for Chronic Low Back Pain," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-7, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0052082
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052082
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0052082
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0052082&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0052082?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daniel Niederer & Juliane Mueller, 2020. "Sustainability effects of motor control stabilisation exercises on pain and function in chronic nonspecific low back pain patients: A systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-21, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0052082. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.