Comparison of the effect of the McKenzie method and spiral stabilization in patients with low back pain: A prospective, randomized clinical trial

Nechvátal, Pavol; Hitrík, Tomáš; Kendrová, Lucia; Macej, Michal

doi:10.3233/bmr-210055

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A recent study showed that these two treatment methods both have a comparable effect on improving physical function. Therefore, both are equally effective in patients with NSLBP [ 24 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, Pilates [ 15 , 23 ], the McKenzie method [ 24 ], and physical therapy [ 25 ] were also investigated as the protentional interventions to improve NSLBP. Pilates is a specific type of exercise therapy used to treat NSLBP.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, many investigations show that MCT is superior to Pilates [ 37 ], McKenzie method [ 36 , 38 ], and PT [ 39 ] regarding the counteractive effect of NSLBP. However, the opposite results also exist [ 24 , 40 – 43 ]. Since there have not been any reviews published to directly compare the effect of MCT with Pilates, the McKenzie method, and PT for NSLBP.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

How to tackle non-specific low back pain among adult patients? A systematic review with a meta-analysis to compare four interventions

Jiang,

Xu,

Kong

et al. 2024

J Orthop Surg Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To tackle non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) among patients and find the most effective solution and to quantitatively synthesize the overall effect of motor control training (MCT) compared with Pilates, McKenzie method, and physical therapy (PT) in pain and physical function. Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of four types of intervention (MCT, Pilates, McKenzie method, and PT) for LBP were collected by searching PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCOhost (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and Scopus databases from the establishment of the database to September 30, 2023. The risk of bias was evaluated for included studies using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2.0). Taking pain and physical function in the experimental and control groups as outcome indicators, subgroup analysis was performed according to the intervention method to calculate the standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results A total of 25 RCTs, including 1253 patients, were included. Meta-analysis showed that MCT effectively relieved pain [SMD = −0.65, 95% CI (− 1.00, − 0.29), p < 0.01] and improved physical function [SMD = −0.76, 95% CI (− 1.22, − 0.31), p < 0.01] comparing with other 3 types of intervention. Subgroup analysis suggested that MCT could alleviate pain [SMD = −0.92, 95% CI (− 1.34, − 0.50), p < 0.01] and improve physical function [SMD = −1.15, 95% CI (− 1.72, − 0.57), p < 0.01] compared with PT, but it had no statistical significance compared with Pilates [pain: SMD = 0.13, 95% CI (− 0.56, 0.83), p = 0.71; physical function: SMD = 0.10, 95% CI (− 0.72, 0.91), p = 0.81] and the McKenzie method [pain: SMD = −0.03, 95% CI (− 0.75, 0.68), p = 0.93; physical function: SMD = −0.03, 95% CI (− 1.00, 0.94), p = 0.95]. Conclusions MCT can effectively relieve pain and improve physical function in patients with NSLBP. It is more effective compared with PT for LBP, while no differences were detected between MCT and Pilates, as well as McKenzie method. Therefore, MCT, Pilates, and the McKenzie method should be encouraged as exercise interventions for NSLBP rehabilitation.

show abstract

“…A recent study showed that these two treatment methods both have a comparable effect on improving physical function. Therefore, both are equally effective in patients with NSLBP [ 24 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%