To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

Clinical prediction rule for lumbar stabilization exercise could not be validated for LBP

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Author Verified
Ace Report Cover
September 2014

Clinical prediction rule for lumbar stabilization exercise could not be validated for LBP

Vol: 3| Issue: 9| Number:40| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Prognosis
OE Level Evidence:2
Journal Level of Evidence:N/A

A clinical prediction rule to identify patients with low back pain who are likely to experience short-term success following lumbar stabilization exercises: a randomized controlled validation study

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2014 Jan;44(1):6-B13. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2014.4888.

Contributing Authors:
A Rabin A Shashua K Pizem R Dickstein G Dar

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

Synopsis

105 patients with low back pain (LBP) were randomized to receive treatment with either lumbar stabilization exercises (LSE) or manual therapy (MT). A clinical prediction rule (CPR) predicting successful outcomes based on CPR status following LSE was tested for validity. After 8 weeks, the present study was unable to validate CPR, as the interaction between treatment and CPR status was absent, desp...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue