Abstract
Low back pain is a widespread public health concern owing to its high prevalence rates according to the Global Burden of Diseases. This study aimed to investigate the effect of exercise alone or in combination with manual therapy and kinesiotherapy on pain sensitivity, disability, kinesiophobia, self-efficacy, and catastrophizing in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). A total of 55 participants were enrolled and randomly allocated to one of three groups: (1) exercise alone group (ET; n = 19), (2) exercise + manual therapy group (ETManual therapy; n = 18), and (3) exercise + kinesio tape group (ETkinesiotape; n = 18). The interventions consisted of core stabilization exercises (ET group), prior spinal manipulation with core exercises (ETManual therapy group), and combined application of kinesiotape plus core stabilization exercises (ETkinesiotape group). The primary outcome was disability. The secondary outcomes were pain sensitization, kinesiophobia, catastrophizing, and self-efficacy. Assessments were performed at baseline and at weeks 3, 6, and 12. All therapies applied achieved significant improvements over time after 12 weeks in all parameters analyzed. ETmanualtherapy showed the greatest changes in all variables, with significant differences from the rest of the interventions in Oswestry (ODI) (3 and 6 weeks, respectively). A clinically significant cutoff point was achieved for the ETmanualtherapy group in the ODI parameter (−54.71%, −63.16% and −87.70% at 3, 6, and 12 weeks, respectively). Manual therapy prior to the core exercise technique was the most effective approach to improve health-related functionality compared with exercise alone or exercise combined with kinesiotape in patients with CLBP.
Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT05544890.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Low back pain is a widespread public health concern1 owing to its high prevalence. Currently, more than 70% of the population experiences at least one episode of global low back pain2, with approximately 577.0 millions people suffering from this pathology worldwide3. Up to 85–95% of people do not have a specific patho-anatomical cause attributable to their pain4. People with chronic low back pain (CLBP) have severe restrictions on daily life activities, resulting in high levels of pain and disability5. The clinical profile of individuals with CLBP is highly intricate, and there is a significant diversity in pain processing mechanisms3. Patient-centered approaches have recently been considered key features of patients with persistent pain6. CLBP has gained immense importance among healthcare providers7. Existing at the present several treatments are currently available for CLBP.
According to the guidelines of the North American Spine Society, physical activity, patient engagement, and positive expectations regarding the nature of treatment are essential for recovery8. Exercise treatment not only has a biomechanical impact but also serves as an intervention to foster patient self-management9, as it encourages the adoption of strategies to enhance biopsychosocial beliefs10. Consequently, high-risk factors can help healthcare professionals identify individuals who may be more susceptible to chronic pain and develop comprehensive treatment plans that address both the physical and psychosocial aspects of the condition. Treatments addressing psychosocial factors in high-risk patients are considered more effective than usual care11. Catastrophizing, kinesiophobia, and fear of pain are linked to disability via psychological mechanisms12,13,14. Although all components are related to the patient's multidimensional pain experience, anxiety, depression, and severe kinesiophobia were not associated with disability15.
Multiple treatment options have been used to improve pain and its associated factors in different CLBP populations, with contradictory and limited effects16. Probably inefficient conditioned pain-modulated mechanisms and the presence of psychological factors could be considered contributing factors to the occurrence of CLBP17. The optimal treatment strategy for conservative management of CLBP remains controversial18. More specifically core stability exercise is more effective in pain reduction and improved physical function in individuals with CLBP in the short term. Moreover, other interventions, such as manual therapy (MT), which has been demonstrated to be useful in patients with CLBP on disability when applied alone19,20, seem to be a promising treatment option for patients with CLBP21,22. Lastly, kinesiotape (KT) is becoming relatively common in managing the same condition23, and it seems that in combination with core exercises, KT is usually used to improve muscle activation due to the placebo effect caused by the expectations generated by KT in the patient24.
Multimodal approaches, defined as a combination of different techniques, can improve pain management more comprehensively in patients with CLBP25. However, information regarding the most effective treatment for individual patients or specific patient subgroups is limited8,26. Therefore, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) has been used to classify patients with CLBP, reduce the heterogeneity of patients encountered, and monitor changes in disability27. To our knowledge, a low number of inquiries have compared the effects of active core exercise combined with passive techniques (MT or KT) with those of exercise alone in patients with CLBP (mild disability). Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the effects of core stability exercise alone or in combination with MT or KT on disability, kinesiophobia, catastrophizing, self-efficacy, and pain sensitivity (PPTs) in CLBP patients with mild disability (ODI < 20%). We hypothesized that exercise combined with MT would provide greater changes and benefits than exercise alone or in combination with KT, in terms of pain sensitivity, disability improvement, and psychosocial well-being.
Materials and methods
Study design
A simple-blind 12-week randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted. Participants were randomly allocated to one of three experimental groups (i.e., ET, ETmanualtherapy or ETkinesiotape). The exercise training (ET) group only performed the core exercise program. The manual therapy group received MT before the exercise training intervention (ETmanualtherapy), and the third group received KT before the exercise training intervention (ETkinesiotape). All patients were handled by two physiotherapists with extensive experience (> 10 years) in the treatment employed. One of them conducted the interventions for all three groups, whereas the other performed the evaluations, ensuring that the second physiotherapist was blinded to the evaluated group. An independent researcher, using an Excel formula, generated a table of random numbers to blind data collectors and outcome adjudicators to ensure unbiased outcome ascertainment. A block randomization design (block sizes of 4, 6, or 8) was applied to ensure an equal number of participants in each group. As it is impossible to blind participants and treat the physiotherapist with KT application or MT, a single-blind design was chosen. This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Universidad Católica de Valencia (UCV/2019–2020/138) in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the Helsinki Declaration, 201828. In addition, it has been registered at Clinicaltrial.gov 19/09/22 (NCT05544890). Each participant signed a written informed consent form.
Participants
70 volunteers participated in this study (38 women and 32 men; 43.3 ± 15.1 years, 1.70 ± 0.1 m, 69.24 ± 13.4 kg). All participants were diagnosed with CLBP at a general orthopaedic clinic and were recruited through advertisements for “a novel mind–body clinical study of CLBP” in flyers. The inclusion criteria were: (i) age between 18 and 65 years, (ii) medical diagnosis of CLBP confirmed by an orthopaedic specialist, and (iii) a maximum value of 20% (mild disability) by ODI. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (i) previous or scheduled surgeries in the lower back and abdominal area, (ii) presence of severe fractures or pathologies, (iii) diagnosis of radiculopathy or neuropathy (with or without spinal canal stenosis), (iv) structural deformity in the spinal column, (v) neurological or psychiatric disorder, and (vi) presence or suspicion of pregnancy.
Study procedures
All participants completed a total of twenty-four sessions guided by a physical specialist. All participants were randomized in the first session, and data collection was collected one week before and after the intervention program, at weeks 3 (session 6) and 6 (session 12), before the treatment session.
Outcome measures
Disability
Disability (primary outcome) was assessed using the ODI (version 2.0) questionnaire. It was divided into 10 sections (each scored from zero to five, with higher scores indicating higher disability) and was self-administered to assess the limitations of different activities of daily living. The final index was calculated by dividing the total score by the total possible score. The Spanish version used demonstrated high reliability and internal consistency (α = 0.86)29.
Kinesiophobia
The Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK) was used to measure fear of movement or reinjury. The TSK is a self-administered questionnaire composed of different questions with a 4-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” The internal consistency of TSK scores ranges from α = 0.70–0.83 in individuals with low back pain30. Test–retest reliability ranges from r = 0.64 to 0.80, and concurrent validity is moderate, ranging from r = 0.33 to 0.5931.
Catastrophism
The Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), a self-administered questionnaire (13 items on a Likert-type scale from 0 to 4), was used in this study to assess the level of catastrophizing in the presence of pain. The total score ranges from 0 to 52 points, with higher scores representing higher levels of catastrophizing. The Spanish version of the PCS has an internal consistency of 0.79 and a test–retest reliability of 0.8432.
Self-efficacy
The self-efficacy questionnaire is composed of 19 items with 3 domains that assess self-efficacy for pain management and physical functioning. The Spanish version of the Graded Chronic Pain Scale had a high internal consistency (α = 0.87)33.
Pain sensitivity (PPTs)
The minimal pressure at which the sense of pressure first changes to pain is defined as PPT34. PPTs were measured using a manual Wagner Fdk/Fdn series force dial analog Fisher algometer (Wagner Instruments, Greenwich, CT, USA). The instrument consists of a manometer attached to a cylindrical rubber tip (1 cm2). The patient must indicate when the pressure begins to be painful. The plunger of the device was positioned perpendicular to the paravertebral muscles, respecting the proximity of 2 cm lateral to the midline between the L2-L3 spinous process. Three PPTs measurements were performed at each site, and the mean value was used for further analysis. The reliability coefficient was high, presenting Cronbach coefficients of 0.9 and 0.9535.
Interventions
ET group
A core stabilization exercise program, composed of three sets of specific lumbopelvic exercises, was performed. All subjects carried out the same sessions (twenty-four), two times (approximately 60 min) a week on alternate days. Each session consisted of stabilization exercises (Fig. 1). The first session involved a familiarization session in which the selected exercises were performed and participants were instructed to activate the abdominal muscles. All exercises were performed three times. Dynamic exercises consisted of 10 repetitions, while static exercises were performed for approximately 30 s of isometric contraction. A 30-s rest interval was interspersed between sets, while 2–3 min were provided between exercises36. The exercise protocol was conducted by a physiotherapist with 10 years of experience. All procedures were carried out in an individualized manner and overseen by the same professional. All participants in each group received the same protocol prescribed by the same professional. The training regimen, integrating motor control exercises, adhered to the principles outlined by Falla et al.27; the participants performed the same training volume Fig. 1.
ETmanualtherapy group
MT techniques were performed by a qualified physical specialist with eight years of experience in MT before the core stabilization exercises in each session. The participant received a single, high-velocity manipulation37 using a side-lying position, with the target side up, superior leg bent at the hip, knee, and arms folded (Figure S1). The technique was applied bilaterally, one time per side in each session. The patient was stabilized by a physical specialist through the upper arm while rotating the thoracolumbar spine. The force of the thrust was not directed towards a specific lumbar level, but covered the L3-S1 segment. The technique was always applied prior to the exercise session and lasted 5 min per patient. In the 24 sessions carried out in 12 weeks of treatment, we always proceeded in the same way38,39.
ETkinesiotape group
The group that received physical therapy plus KT (Kinesiotape NonDolens® 5 cm × 5 m, Berlin, Germany) had elastic tape applied to the lower back at the beginning of the sessions. The area was cleansed before application to improve adherence. Taping was initiated by placing the patient in a neutral spine position and applying the base of Kinesio Y strips in the sacroiliac joint region, a minimum of 5 cm below the initiation of pain40. The tail was subjected to very light to light tension (15–25% of available) or paper-off tension. A 22-cm tape was cut and elongated to a maximum of 5 cm (Fig. 2). After completing the training program, both kinesio-taping strips were retired.
Statistical analysis
Following CONSORT guidelines, peer protocol analysis was performed using the statistical analysis software SPSS 24 (IBM Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA). Kolmogorov–Smirnov and the Levene tests were checked for normality and homogeneity. To analyze the effects of the experimental programs, a repeated measurement analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed with experimental groups (i.e., ET, ETmanualtherpay, and ETkinesiotape) and time (i.e., at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 weeks) on disability, pain, and psychosocial parameters using the Visual Analog Scale measurements (at baseline) as the covariate. Bonferroni corrections were used to examine interaction effects through within- and between-group comparisons; specifically, the effect of group × time interaction was analyzed. The effect size (ES) was estimated by calculating Cohen's d coefficient. ES was classified as trivial (< 0.20), small (0.20–0.49), moderate (0.50–0.79), or large (> 0.80). The delta percentage (Δ%) was calculated using the standard formula: change (%) = [(post-test score − pre-test score)/pre-test score] × 100. The 95% confidence level (significance level, p < 0.05) was considered statistically significant. Results are presented as mean difference (MD) and confidence interval (95% (IC95%).
Sample size calculation
The sample size was estimated using de GPower® software (Franz Faul, Universität Kiel, Kiel, Germany), version 3.1.9.2. A statistical method to analyze the data will be repeated measures ANOVA. Thus, the calculation was based on the primary outcome of "Pain Perception" and considered an effect size (ES) of Cohen’s d coefficient of 0.44, based on the findings from a previous study41, a power of 0.90, an alpha error of 0.05, and three groups. A total of 45 participants (fifteen subjects per group) were needed. Moreover, considering the probability of loss during follow-up (15%), three more participants considering dropout (18 participants * group) were used with a total of 54 participants. The selected effect size fell within the small category (0.20–0.59), which was justified by previous and subsequent studies32,33.
Consent for publication
Informed consent was taken from the participant for publication of identifying information/images in an online open-access publication.
Results
Participation flow and sample characteristics
Eighty participants were assessed for eligibility. Finally, 55 were enrolled to participate in the study. No significant differences between the groups were observed at baseline for any parameter, except for the level of catastrophizing. (Table 1). Seven patients dropped out at follow-up (2 participants at 3 weeks, 4 at 6 weeks, and 1 at 12 weeks), completing the study for a total of 48 participants (see Fig. 3).
Program feasibility and safety: attendance. Compliance and adverse events
Eighty participants were assessed for eligibility. Ultimately, 55 participants were enrolled in the study. No significant differences between the groups were observed at baseline for any parameter, except for the level of catastrophizing. (Table 1). Seven patients dropped out at follow-up (2 participants at 3 weeks, 4 at 6 weeks, and 1 at 12 weeks), completing the study for a total of 48 participants.
Results on disability, pain sensitivity, kinesiophobia, catastrophizing and self-efficacy
Regarding ODI, RM ANCOVA showed statistically significant differences in the effect of Group*Time interaction (F[4.09, 87.99] = 9.54, p = < 0.001, η2p = 0.048). Bonferroni’s post hoc analysis showed statistically significant differences at 3 weeks (ETmanualtherapy vs. ET [MD3weeks = −0.057, CI95% = −0.096, −0.018, p = < 0.001]) and ETmanualtherapy vs. ETkinesiotape [MD3weeks = −0.047, CI95% = −0.086, −0.008, p = 0.005]), at 6 weeks ETmanualtherapy vs. ETkinesiotape (MD6weeks = −0.039, CI95% = −0.078, −2.715, p = 0.046) and at 12 weeks ETmanualtherapy vs. ETkinesiotape (MD12weeks = −0.040, CI95% = −0.079, −7.57, p = 0.040)), see Fig. 4.
Results on kinesiophobia, catastrophizing and self-efficacy
Regarding TSK, RM ANCOVA found statistically significant differences in the effect of Group*Time interaction (F[1.73, 76.22] = 3.72, p = 0.034, η2p = 0.027). Bonferroni’s post hoc analysis showed no statistically significant differences for any of the comparisons, see Fig. 5.
As to PCS, RM ANCOVA showed statistically significant differences in the effect of Group*Time interaction (F[3.45, 75.94] = 5.61, p = < 0.001, η2p = 0.034). Bonferroni’s post hoc analysis showed no statistically significant differences for any of the comparisons, see Fig. 6.
Concerning SE, RM ANCOVA showed statistically significant differences in the main effect of Group*Time interaction (F[3.61, 79.45] = 2.08, p = 0.097, η2p = 0.008). Bonferroni’s post hoc analysis showed no statistically significant differences for any of the comparisons, see Fig. 7.
Results on pain sensitivity
In terms of pain sensitivity, RM ANCOVA showed statistically significant differences in the effect of Group*Time interaction (F[3.55, 78.18] = 1.79, p = 0.146, η2p = 0.014). Bonferroni’s post hoc analysis showed no statistically significant differences for any of the comparisons.
The delta percentage (Δ%)
The absolute and delta change between the time study periods of each outcome is shown in the table in supplementary material (Table S1).
Adverse events
No adverse events or unintended effects were reported.
Discussion
The main findings were that all the therapeutic approaches analyzed improved all the variables after 12 weeks, without significant differences between groups in most of the parameters. It should be highlighted that the ETmanualtherapy group showed significant changes at 3 weeks in the ODI score compared with the ET group. At weeks 6 and 12, no differences in functionality were observed between the ET group and ETmanualtherapy. During this period, the ETKinesiotaping group showed the poorest results. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed in the TSK, PCS, SF, and PPTs scores at 3, 6, and 12 weeks. Despite non-statistically significant differences among the three therapeutic modalities in the rest of the variables, moderate-to-large effect sizes were observed at 3, 6, and 12 weeks in most of the parameters analyzed in the different groups. Researchers must ensure clear and transparent measurements, and report adherence and dropout data. The present study showed a dropout rate of approximately 15%. Considering the study design, the principle of randomization could be detrimental to pain management in patients with chronic pain42. We considered the abandonment rate satisfactory. Furthermore, it is crucial to emphasize the stringent eligibility criteria employed in this study.
Core exercise and MT have been shown to be effective treatment (in an isolated application) modalities in reducing disability, with no significant differences between them43. Core stabilization exercises have been shown to be as effective as MT in decreasing disability and improving quality of life44. Recent research indicates that MT combined with specific adjuvant exercise was beneficial in treating CLBP with respect to changes in pain45. Regarding our findings, adding MT prior to core stabilization exercises improved the reduction of disability after three weeks of treatment compared to either exercise alone or exercise with KT. This is in accordance with clinical guidelines that establish a combination of MT and EX46. The findings of the present study showed improvement during the first three weeks of treatment. Thus, in terms of ODI improvement, the ETmanualtherapy group demonstrated a 54.7% increase, whereas the ET and ETkinesiotape groups experienced an increases of 27.1% and 19.9%, respectively. Regarding ODI scores in patients with CLBP, the minimal clinically important change for disability should be at least 25%47. In the present study, both the ET and ETmanualtherapy groups showed an improvement greater than 25% (27.1% and 54.7% respectively), and therefore can be considered useful treatment modalities.
Exercise prescriptions using contemporary pain science and biopsychosocial approaches should be emphasized in practice48. Therefore, all groups performed exercise as a common exercise, and it is likely that the observed improvement in all evaluated parameters was a result of this shared intervention. Kinesiophobia, self-efficacy, and catastrophizing in patients with CLBP have been suggested to influence functional disability. TSK and PCS are widely used tools to measure fear of movement and pain-related catastrophic thinking in people with chronic spinal disorders49. Our results showed that the levels were reduced in all three intervention groups. Furthermore, no differences were observed between the groups with respect to pain sensitivity. Differences were found between ODI score groups with respect to pain sensitivity, TSK, PCS, and SF because baseline psychological factors nor PPTs were significantly associated with disability after 3 months50. MT may address psychosocial or other factors that may contribute to disability, enhancing an individualized biopsychosocial approach in the management of patients with CLBP18.
The results suggest that the addition of MT to EX had an additional short-term effect on disability. In accordance with our results, reductions in pain catastrophizing and kinesiophobia partially mediated the pathway to improve physical function when using exercise for CLBP51. The variables PCS, TSK, and SF could have been included as covariables in the statistical analysis. In the present research, they were not included because the findings demonstrated inconsistent use of covariates in statistical models in chronic pain clinical trials52. Moreover, the baseline differences in the PCS scores between the groups could be considered a limitation. In the experimental design of this research, the effect of treatments was not assessed. Instead, it was evaluated which of the three interventions was superior in each of the variables. In relation to the eligibility criteria, the reason why patients with previous or scheduled surgeries in the hip o lower limb area was because several authors demonstrated that these interventions had no impact on the abdominal muscles53. The changes in abdominal structure induced by trunk surgery may influenced the alteration of transversus muscular activity54. It should be noted that the internus oblique/transversus abdominis muscle activity in patients without trunk surgery are higher55. In contrast, the specificity criteria based on the ODI (only stage two patients where included) of the subjects with CLBP analyzed must also be considered as a strength. The value for mild disability was based on previous studies. More specific and homogeneous patient subgroups have been established based on the ODI questionnaire56. Future studies should evaluate whether the benefits of core exercise associated with MT are valid in patients with higher ODI disability levels.
Conclusion
Based on the significant differences observed in ODI scores in the short, medium, and long term (3, 6, and 12 weeks, respectively), the ETmanual therapy approach may be a favorable option for improving disability in patients with CLBP (ODI < 20%) compared to other modalities. Although core stability exercise alone is an effective technique for reducing disability, the addition of the passive MT technique produces a large effect size at the early stage of treatment (3 weeks) on disability and kinesiophobia, catastrophizing, and self-efficacy decrease after 12 weeks across both isolated and combined exercise along with PPTs.
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Hoy, D. et al. The global burden of low back pain: Estimates from the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis. 73(6), 968–974 (2014).
Sirbu, E., Onofrei, R. R., Szasz, S. & Susan, M. Predictors of disability in patients with chronic low back pain. Arch Med Sci AMS. 19(1), 94 (2023).
Wu, A., March, L., Zheng, X., Huang, J., Wang, X., Zhao, J, et al. Global low back pain prevalence and years lived with disability from 1990 to 2017: Estimates from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Ann. Transl. Med. 8(6) (2020).
Finucane, L. M. et al. International framework for red flags for potential serious spinal pathologies. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 50(7), 350–372 (2020).
Pitcher, M. H., Von Korff, M., Bushnell, M. C. & Porter, L. Prevalence and profile of high-impact chronic pain in the United States. J Pain. 20(2), 146–160 (2019).
Hutting, N., Caneiro, J. P., Ong’wen, O. M., Miciak, M., Roberts, L. Patient-centered care in musculoskeletal practice: Key elements to support clinicians to focus on the person. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. febrero de 57, 102434 (2022).
Varallo, G. et al. Does kinesiophobia mediate the relationship between pain intensity and disability in individuals with chronic low-back pain and obesity?. Brain Sci. junio de 11(6), 684 (2021).
Kreiner, D. S., Matz, P., Bono, C. M., Cho, C. H., Easa, J. E., Ghiselli, G., et al. Guideline summary review: An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of low back pain. Spine J Off J North Am Spine Soc. julio de 20(7), 998–1024 (2020).
Hutting, N., Oswald, W., Staal, J. B. & Heerkens, Y. F. Self-management support for people with non-specific low back pain: A qualitative survey among physiotherapists and exercise therapists. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. diciembre de 50, 102269 (2020).
Gibbs, M. T., Last, T., Marshall, P. & Jones, M. D. Are the attitudes and beliefs of Australian exercise-based practitioners associated with their use of, and confidence in, treatment modalities for people with chronic low back pain?. Musculoskeletal Care. 22(1), e1852 (2024).
da Silva, B. A. M., Gelain, G. M. & Candotti, C. T. The influence of physical exercise on behavioral habits, kinesiophobia, and disability in people with low back pain: A retrospective cross-sectional study. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 28, 348–353 (2021).
Leeuw, M. et al. The fear-avoidance model of musculoskeletal pain: current state of scientific evidence. J Behav Med. 30, 77–94 (2007).
Vlaeyen, J. W. & Linton, S. J. Fear-avoidance and its consequences in chronic musculoskeletal pain: A state of the art. Pain. 85(3), 317–332 (2000).
Wideman, T. H., Finan, P. H., Edwards, R. R., Quartana, P. J., Buenaver, L. F., Haythornthwaite, J. A., et al. Increased sensitivity to physical activity among individuals with knee osteoarthritis: Relation to pain outcomes, psychological factors, and responses to quantitative sensory testing. PAIN® 155(4), 703–11 (2014).
Yamada, A. S., Simon, D., Antunes, F. T. T., Say, K. G. & Souza, A. H. D. Psychosocial factors associated with disability in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain: A cross-sectional study. Rehabilitacion. 57(2), 100750 (2023).
Ketenci, A. & Zure, M. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment approaches to chronic lumbar back pain. Turk J Phys Med Rehabil. 67(1), 1 (2021).
Meilleur-Durand, M. et al. Conditioned pain modulation, kinesiophobia, and pain catastrophizing as prognostic factors for chronicity in a population with acute low back pain: An exploratory prospective study. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. abril de 70, 102920 (2024).
Toomey, D., Reid, D. & White, S. How manual therapy provided a gateway to a biopsychosocial management approach in an adult with chronic post-surgical low back pain: A case report. J Man Manip Ther. 29(2), 107–132 (2021).
Boff, T. A. et al. Effectiveness of spinal manipulation and myofascial release compared with spinal manipulation alone on health-related outcomes in individuals with non-specific low back pain: randomized controlled trial. Physiotherapy. 107, 71–80 (2020).
Krekoukias, G. et al. Spinal mobilization vs conventional physiotherapy in the management of chronic low back pain due to spinal disk degeneration: a randomized controlled trial. J Man Manip Ther. 25(2), 66–73 (2017).
Dos Santos, F. F., Braga, M. L., Barroso, M. M. F., Oliveira, V. C., Oliveira, M. X. Effects of photobiomodulation therapy combined with exercise in patients who have chronic low back pain: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Phys Ther. 101(11), pzab201 (2021).
Sharma, S., Akmal, S. & Sharma, S. Comparison of two manual therapy approaches combined with exercise on pain, strength and electromyographic muscle activity in athletes with subacute mechanical low back pain. Sport Sci Health. 17(4), 919–929 (2021).
Page, P. Cervicogenic headaches: An evidence-led approach to clinical management. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 6(3), 254 (2011).
Jung, K. S., Jung, J. H., In, T. S. and Cho, H. Y. Influences of kinesio taping with therapeutic exercise in patients with low back pain. En Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute; 927 (2021).
Flynn, D. M. Chronic musculoskeletal pain: Nonpharmacologic, noninvasive treatments. Am Fam Physician. 102(8), 465–477 (2020).
Mauck, M. C. et al. Evidence-based interventions to treat chronic low back pain: Treatment selection for a personalized medicine approach. Pain Rep. 7(5), e1019 (2022).
Wang, F., Jiang, Y. & Hou, L. Effects of different exercise intensities on motor skill learning capability and process. Sci Sports. 38(2), 207-e1 (2023).
Duncan, N. Declaration of Helsinki. World Med J. 59(4) (2013).
Jimenez-Pacheco, A., Jimenez-Pacheco, A. Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome: A therapeutic challenge. Rev Med Chil. agosto de 142(8), 1078–9 (2014).
Swinkels-Meewisse, E., Swinkels, R., Verbeek, A., Vlaeyen, J. & Oostendorp, R. Psychometric properties of the Tampa Scale for kinesiophobia and the fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire in acute low back pain. Man Ther. 8(1), 29–36 (2003).
Vincent, H. K. et al. Kinesiophobia and fear avoidance beliefs in overweight older adults with chronic low back pain, relationship to walking endurance: Part II. Am J Phys Med Rehabil Acad Physiatr. 92(5), 439 (2013).
Campayo, J. G. et al. Validación de la versión española de la escala de la catastrofización ante el dolor (Pain Catastrophizing Scale) en la fibromialgia. Med Clin (Barc). 131(13), 487–92 (2008).
Ferrer-Peña, R., Gil-Martínez, A., Pardo-Montero, J., Jiménez-Penick, V., Gallego-Izquierdo, T., La Touche, R. Adaptation and validation of the Spanish version of the graded chronic pain scale. Reumatol Clínica Engl Ed. 1 de mayo de 12(3), 130–138 (2016).
Vanderweeën, L., Oostendorp, R. A. B., Vaes, P., Duquet, W. Pressure algometry in manual therapy. Man Ther. diciembre de 1(5), 258–265 (1996).
Park, G., Kim, C. W., Park, S. B., Kim, M. J. & Jang, S. H. Reliability and usefulness of the pressure pain threshold measurement in patients with myofascial pain. Ann Rehabil Med. 35(3), 412 (2011).
Ozsoy, G. et al. The effects of myofascial release technique combined with core stabilization exercise in elderly with non-specific low back pain: A randomized controlled, single-blind study. Clin Interv Aging. 14, 1729 (2019).
McCarthy, C. J., Potter, L., Oldham, J. A. Comparing targeted thrust manipulation with general thrust manipulation in patients with low back pain: A general approach is as effective as a specific one. A randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 5(1), e000514 (2019).
Aspinall, S. L., Jacques, A., Leboeuf-Yde, C., Etherington, S. J. & Walker, B. F. No difference in pressure pain threshold and temporal summation after lumbar spinal manipulation compared to sham: A randomised controlled trial in adults with low back pain. Musculoskelet Sci Pract. 43, 18–25 (2019).
Bergmann, T. F., Peterson, D. H. Chiropractic technique-E-Book. Elsevier Health Sciences (2010).
Uzunkulaoğlu, A., Aytekin, M. G., Ay, S. & Ergin, S. The effectiveness of Kinesio taping on pain and clinical features in chronic non-specific low back pain: A randomized controlled clinical trial. Turk J Phys Med Rehabil. 64(2), 126 (2018).
Shamsi, M. B., Sarrafzadeh, J. & Jamshidi, A. Comparing core stability and traditional trunk exercise on chronic low back pain patients using three functional lumbopelvic stability tests. Physiother THEORY Pract. febrero de 31(2), 89–98 (2015).
Bicego, A., Monseur, J., Rousseaux, F., Faymonville, M. E., Malaise, N., Salamun, I., et al. Drop-out from chronic pain treatment programmes: Is randomization justified in biopsychosocial approaches? J. Rehabil. Med. 53(4) (2021).
Prat-Luri, A., de Los Rios-Calonge, J., Moreno-Navarro, P., Manresa-Rocamora, A., Vera-Garcia, F. J., Barbado, D. Effect of trunk-focused exercises on pain, disability, quality of life and trunk physical fitness in low back pain and how potential effect modifiers modulate their effects: A systematic review with meta-analyses. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. (0):1–26 (2023).
Rasmussen-Barr, E., Nilsson-Wikmar, L. & Arvidsson, I. Stabilizing training compared with manual treatment in sub-acute and chronic low-back pain. Man Ther. 8(4), 233–41 (2003).
Geisser, M. E., Ranavaya, M., Haig, A. J., Roth, R. S., Zucker, R., Ambroz, C., et al. A meta-analytic review of surface electromyography among persons with low back pain and normal, healthy controls. J. Pain Off. J. Am. Pain Soc. noviembre de 6(11), 711–26 (2005).
Tieppo Francio, V., Westerhaus, B. D., Carayannopoulos, A. G., Sayed, D. Multifidus dysfunction and restorative neurostimulation: A scoping review. Pain Med Malden Mass. 13 de julio de;pnad098 (2023).
de Oliveira, R. F., Costa, L. O. P., Nascimento, L. P. & Rissato, L. L. Directed vertebral manipulation is not better than generic vertebral manipulation in patients with chronic low back pain: A randomised trial. J Physiother. 66(3), 174–9 (2020).
Riipinen, P. et al. Patient’s perception of exercise for management of chronic low back pain: A qualitative study exercise for the management of low back pain. Musculoskeletal Care. 20(4), 848–59 (2022).
Saadat, M. et al. To evaluate responsiveness and minimal important change (MIC) for the Persian versions of FABQ, TSK, and PCS. Eur SPINE J. septiembre de 32(9), 3023–9 (2023).
Foubert, A., Cleenders, E., Sligchers, M., Heystee, L., Meeus, M., Vaes, P., et al. Associations between psychological factors, pressure pain thresholds and conditioned pain modulation and disability in (sub)-acute low back pain: a three-month follow-up study. J. Man. Manip. Ther. 4 de julio de 31(4), 270–8 (2023).
Wood, L. et al. Pain Catastrophising and Kinesiophobia mediate pain and physical function improvements with Pilates exercise in chronic low back pain: A mediation analysis of a randomised controlled trial. J Physiother. 69(3), 168–74 (2023).
Langford, D. J. et al. Covariate adjustment in chronic pain trials: An oft-missed opportunity. J PAIN. septiembre de 24(9), 1555–69 (2023).
Borys, M. et al. Quadratus lumborum and transversus abdominis plane blocks and their impact on acute and chronic pain in patients after cesarean section: A randomized controlled study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 18(7), 3500 (2021).
Han, X. & Gu, J. The failure of transversus abdominis plane block may be related to diastasis recti abdominis after cesarean delivery. Int J Obstet Anesth. 49, 103243 (2022).
Kuciel, N., Mazurek, J., Biernat, K., Pawik, Ł & Sutkowska, E. Abdominal muscles activity during abdominal bracing and posterior pelvic tilt in women after natural birth and after caesarean delivery. Acta Bıoeng. Bıomech. 22(4), 167–73 (2020).
Henry, S. M., Van Dillen, L. R., Trombley, A. R., Dee, J. M. & Bunn, J. Y. Reliability of novice raters in using the movement system impairment approach to classify people with low back pain. Man Ther. 18(1), 35–40 (2013).
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all participants of the present study.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
For research articles with several authors, a short paragraph specifying their individual contributions must be provided. The following statements should be used “P.B.G and J.V.M, conceptualization; P.B.G, methodology; P.G.B software; L.B.V, C.B. and F.R.B, validation; J.V.M and I.J.B, formal analysis; P.G.B, data curation; P.B.G, writing—original draft preparation; J.V. and P.G.B, writing and editing— and C.B and LBV review the final manuscript . All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.”
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Blanco-Giménez, P., Vicente-Mampel, J., Gargallo, P. et al. Clinical relevance of combined treatment with exercise in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Sci Rep 14, 17042 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-68192-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-68192-2
- Springer Nature Limited