ArticleFrontiers in rehabilitation sciences2025
Lumbar paraspinal muscles in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain and the effect of exercise: comparative and interventional study.
Article in Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lumbar paraspinal muscles (LPM), which belong to lumbar extensor muscles, play a key role in stabilising the lumbar spine and maintaining spine health. Although chronic non-specific low back pain (CNLBP) represents a major health problem worldwide, there is a knowledge gap regarding the function, morphology of LPM, and the effect of regular exercise on them in patients with CNLBP. The purpose of the study was to evaluate functional and quantitative MRI (qMRI) parameters of LPM in CNLBP patients, compare them to matched healthy volunteers (HV), and assess the effect of exercise therapy on these parameters in CNLBP patients. Methods: The first part of the study was cross-sectional, observational, and comparative; the second was prospective and interventional. Based on physiological parameters, 43 matched pairs of CNLBP patients and HV were formed. All participants underwent MRI of the LPM using a 6-point Dixon gradient-echo sequence to assess qMRI parameters: fat fraction, total muscle volume, and functional muscle volume (FMV). Maximal isometric lumbar extensor muscle strength (MILEMS), lumbar extensor muscle endurance (LEME), MILEMS to LPM FMV ratio, pain, and disability were assessed. Each group's parameters were compared and effect size evaluated. The total of 29 patients entered an 18-week hybrid guided daily home-based exercise programme, which was completed by 27 CNLBP patients. The study was registered, trial registration number is ISRCTN11556477. Results: CNLBP patients had significantly lower MILEMS, LEME (both Conclusions: The significant LPM dysfunction and poorer muscle quality in CNLBP patients were reversible with exercise. Our study does not support the use of qMRI parameters as objective and reliable biomarkers of LPM dysfunction in a cohort of CNLBP with mild clinical impairment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.