Diese Seite wurde automatisch übersetzt und die Genauigkeit der Übersetzung wird nicht garantiert. Bitte wende dich an die englische Version für einen Quelltext.

Pelvic Control Training Using Pressure Biofeedback Versus Core Stability Training in Non-Specific Low Back Pain (NLBP)

21. Juli 2026 aktualisiert von: Riphah International University

Effect of Pelvic Control Training Using Pressure Biofeedback Versus Core Stability Training on Pain, Range of Motion, Muscle Strength, and Functional Disability in Patients With Non-Specific Low Back Pain

To compare the effects of pelvic control training using pressure biofeedback with core stability training on pain, range of motion, muscle strength, and functional disability in patients with non specific low back pain

Studienübersicht

Status

Rekrutierung

Bedingungen

Intervention / Behandlung

Detaillierte Beschreibung

A randomized controlled trial compared core stabilization exercises with routine exercise therapy in patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain. Participants were randomly allocated into two groups, with both groups receiving conventional hot pack therapy three times per week for four weeks. Pain and functional disability were assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Both interventions significantly improved outcomes; however, core stabilization exercises produced greater reductions in pain and disability than routine exercise therapy.

Another randomized controlled trial investigated the effects of core stability training (CST) alone versus combined core and pelvic floor muscle (PFM) training in sedentary women with low back pain. Participants were allocated into a control group, a CST group, and a combined training group, with supervised sessions conducted three times weekly for four weeks. Although both exercise interventions significantly improved trunk muscle endurance and reduced pain, CST alone demonstrated greater improvements in lumbar function than the combined intervention.

A randomized controlled trial compared traditional lumbar dynamic strength training with stabilization exercises using pressure biofeedback in patients with chronic low back pain. Outcomes included pain intensity, disability, lumbar mobility, transversus abdominis strength, quality of life, and fear-avoidance beliefs. Both interventions significantly improved all measured outcomes, with no statistically significant differences between groups, indicating comparable effectiveness.

A comparative study evaluated Maitland mobilization and core stability exercises in adults with chronic nonspecific low back pain. Pain and disability were measured using the VAS and ODI before and after treatment. Both interventions significantly reduced pain and improved functional disability, with no clear superiority of either treatment approach.

A randomized study compared pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) with conventional physiotherapy treatment. Participants received routine physiotherapy alone, PFMT, or PFMT combined with transversus abdominis co-activation. Functional disability and pain were assessed using the ODI and Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). PFMT, particularly when combined with transversus abdominis activation, resulted in greater improvements in pain and disability, supporting its role as an adjunct to conservative management.

Another study evaluated the effectiveness of a core stability training program in women with chronic nonspecific low back pain. Participants who completed the structured exercise program demonstrated significant reductions in pain intensity and improvements in functional performance compared with the control group, supporting the therapeutic benefits of core stabilization exercises.

A randomized trial compared stabilization exercises alone with stabilization exercises combined with pelvic floor muscle training and physical therapy in women with nonspecific low back pain. The combined intervention produced greater improvements in pain, functional ability, and static and dynamic trunk muscle endurance than stabilization exercises alone.

A clinical study examined the effects of performing proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) lower extremity patterns with and without a pressure biofeedback unit (PBU) in individuals with chronic low back pain. The use of the PBU significantly increased abdominal muscle activation and reduced lumbopelvic rotation, indicating enhanced lumbopelvic stability and motor control during exercise.

Studientyp

Interventionell

Einschreibung (Geschätzt)

50

Phase

  • Unzutreffend

Kontakte und Standorte

Dieser Abschnitt enthält die Kontaktdaten derjenigen, die die Studie durchführen, und Informationen darüber, wo diese Studie durchgeführt wird.

Studienkontakt

Studienorte

  • Pakistan
    • Punjab Province
      • Lahore, Punjab Province, Pakistan, 60000
        • Rekrutierung
        • Nishter Hospital Multan, CMH Multan
        • Kontakt:

Teilnahmekriterien

Forscher suchen nach Personen, die einer bestimmten Beschreibung entsprechen, die als Auswahlkriterien bezeichnet werden. Einige Beispiele für diese Kriterien sind der allgemeine Gesundheitszustand einer Person oder frühere Behandlungen.

Zulassungskriterien

Studienberechtigtes Alter

  • Erwachsene

Akzeptiert gesunde Freiwillige

Nein

Beschreibung

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Children aged 18-30 years.
  • The body mass index within the typical range of 18.5 to 24.9 kg/m².
  • No history of musculoskeletal, neurological, or vestibular disorders.
  • Physically active individuals not engaged in regular core or balance training programs in the last 3 months.
  • Willing to provide informed consent and comply with the study protocol.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • History of lower extremity, spinal, or pelvic injuries in the past 6 months.
  • Current pain, dizziness, or balance impairments.
  • Known postural deformities (e.g., scoliosis, hyper lordosis).
  • Neurological, cardiovascular, or systemic conditions affecting balance or motor performance.
  • Pregnancy or recent childbirth (<6 months)
  • Participation in any other interventional study during the study period.

Studienplan

Dieser Abschnitt enthält Einzelheiten zum Studienplan, einschließlich des Studiendesigns und der Messung der Studieninhalte.

Wie ist die Studie aufgebaut?

Designdetails

  • Hauptzweck: Behandlung
  • Zuteilung: Zufällig
  • Interventionsmodell: Parallele Zuordnung
  • Maskierung: Single

Waffen und Interventionen

Teilnehmergruppe / Arm
Intervention / Behandlung
Experimental: Pelvic Control Training intervention with a Pressure Biofeedback Unit (PBU)
Participants in the PBU-guided pelvic floor muscle training group completed a 6-week program, performed 3-5 sessions per week, with each session lasting 25 minutes. During Week 1, participants were trained in isolated pelvic floor muscle contractions in a crook-lying position using a Pressure Biofeedback Unit (PBU) set at 40 mmHg. They performed 8-12 repetitions with 5-10-second holds and 5-10-second rest periods for 1-2 sets. In Week 2, the program progressed to 2-3 sets, with emphasis on correct muscle activation and minimizing compensatory activity using visual feedback from the PBU. Week 3 focused on improving endurance and maintaining lumbopelvic stability during sustained contractions. In Week 4, functional tasks such as reaching, supine leg slides, and supported bridging were introduced. Week 5 incorporated advanced exercises, including marching and bridging with continued biofeedback, while promoting pelvic control in supported sitting. During Week 6, participants practiced pe
Sonstiges: Pelvic Control Training intervention with a Pressure Biofeedback Unit (PBU)
Participants in the core stability exercise group completed a 6-week program performed 3-5 sessions per week, with each session lasting 25 minutes. The program progressed from core activation exercises (abdominal drawing-in, pelvic tilts, heel slides, and supine marching) to low- and moderate-load stabilization exercises, including dead bugs, glute bridges, bird-dogs, and modified side planks. Exercise intensity and complexity were gradually increased by adding full planks, unstable limb movements, and functional reaching tasks. Throughout the intervention, emphasis was placed on maintaining a neutral spine, controlled breathing, postural stability, and proper neuromuscular control while avoiding compensatory movements.
Andere Namen:
  • PCT
  • PBU
Aktiver Komparator: Core stability training
Participants in the core stability exercise group completed a 6-week program consisting of 3-5 sessions per week, with each session lasting 25 minutes. Training progressed from core muscle activation exercises (abdominal drawing-in, pelvic tilts, heel slides, and supine marching) to low- and moderate-load stabilization exercises, including dead bugs, glute bridges, bird-dogs, and modified side planks. Exercise intensity and complexity were gradually increased by adding full planks, unstable limb movements, and functional reaching tasks. Throughout the program, emphasis was placed on maintaining a neutral spine, proper breathing, neuromuscular control, postural stability, and avoiding compensatory movements.
Sonstiges: Core stability training
Participants in the core stability exercise group completed a 6-week program consisting of 3-5 sessions per week, with each session lasting 25 minutes. Training progressed from core muscle activation exercises (abdominal drawing-in, pelvic tilts, heel slides, and supine marching) to low- and moderate-load stabilization exercises, including dead bugs, glute bridges, bird-dogs, and modified side planks. Exercise intensity and complexity were gradually increased by adding full planks, unstable limb movements, and functional reaching tasks. Throughout the program, emphasis was placed on maintaining a neutral spine, proper breathing, neuromuscular control, postural stability, and avoiding compensatory movements.
Andere Namen:
  • CST

Was misst die Studie?

Primäre Ergebnismessungen

Ergebnis Maßnahme
Maßnahmenbeschreibung
Zeitfenster
Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)
Zeitfenster: 6 weeks
The ODI is comprised of ten categories, each of which evaluates a distinct element of daily functioning. These sections include the following: the level of pain, personal care, lifting, walking, sitting, standing, sleeping, social life, sexual function, and traveling. Every sentence has a score between 0 and 5, where 0 denotes the least amount of handicap and 5 the greatest score. The index, which varies from 0 to 100, is calculated by adding the scores for each question that has been answered, then multiplying the amount by two. A higher score denotes a higher degree of low back pain-related disability
6 weeks
Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS)
Zeitfenster: 6 weeks
The 11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) goes from 0 to 10, with 10 denoting "the highest level of pain imaginable" and 0 denoting "no pain". It is a simple indicator of pain intensity since patients choose the number that most accurately represents their level of pain. Both the NRS and other well-validated pain measuring scales have shown strong correlation, validity, and sensitivity to treatments that are known to improve pain. The test-retest reliability for patients has been fairly high, with values of 0.96 and 0.95, respectively. The NRS and the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) demonstrated a high construct validity relationship in individuals with chronic pain syndromes (correlations varied from 0.86 to 0.95)
6 weeks
Bubble Inclinometer
Zeitfenster: 6 weeks
The bubble inclinometer has high reliability for measuring lumbar range of motion in healthy individuals and patients with LBP. They can be used for evaluating lumbar range of motion in healthy individuals and patients suffering from lumbar back pain, as well as for monitoring therapeutic interventions. For healthy persons, the bubble inclinometer reliably measures the range of motion both within and between days (ICC˃0.75). Regarding the ICC measure, they deemed it high if it was between 0.80 and 1.00, average if it was between 0.60-0.79, and low if it was ≥0.59. Bubble inclinometer has a high degree of reliability when it comes to monitoring all of the aforementioned ranges of motion in the within-day test on patients. Regarding the Between Days Test, while the measurement reliability for side flexions, back extensions, and forward bends was excellent when standing, cut off value for lumbar flexion is less than 40 degrees, while for lumbar extension, it is less than 20 degrees. T
6 weeks
Pressure Biofeedback Unit (PBU)
Zeitfenster: 6 weeks
The Pressure Biofeedback Unit (PBU) is a clinical instrument that assesses and trains the lumbopelvic stability through the changes in the pressure of an inflated cushion that is placed beneath the lumbar spine or Abdomen. It entails the employment of a pressure gauge that gets attached to a pressure cell so that the slightest movement in the pelvic or spinal region can be sensed during the period that particular muscles are being used in a synergistic exercise. One of the numerous functions of the PBU in the field of physical therapy and rehabilitation is the assessment of the capacity of the patient to maintain his spine in a neutral position when his deep abdominal muscles, i.e., multifidus and transversus abdominis, are contracted. When training, the unit is inflated to a basal pressure, which is usually 40 mmHg when the unit is below the lumbar spine. Subsequently, the patient performs the exercises (leg sliding, bridging and belly hollowing) against the desired range of pressure
6 weeks

Mitarbeiter und Ermittler

Hier finden Sie Personen und Organisationen, die an dieser Studie beteiligt sind.

Sponsor

Riphah International University

Ermittler

  • Hauptermittler: Annum Manzoor, MS OMPT, Gulab Devi Teaching institute

Publikationen und hilfreiche Links

Die Bereitstellung dieser Publikationen erfolgt freiwillig durch die für die Eingabe von Informationen über die Studie verantwortliche Person. Diese können sich auf alles beziehen, was mit dem Studium zu tun hat.

Allgemeine Veröffentlichungen

Studienaufzeichnungsdaten

Diese Daten verfolgen den Fortschritt der Übermittlung von Studienaufzeichnungen und zusammenfassenden Ergebnissen an ClinicalTrials.gov. Studienaufzeichnungen und gemeldete Ergebnisse werden von der National Library of Medicine (NLM) überprüft, um sicherzustellen, dass sie bestimmten Qualitätskontrollstandards entsprechen, bevor sie auf der öffentlichen Website veröffentlicht werden.

Haupttermine studieren

Studienbeginn (Tatsächlich)

16. Juli 2026

Primärer Abschluss (Geschätzt)

25. August 2026

Studienabschluss (Geschätzt)

16. September 2026

Studienanmeldedaten

Zuerst eingereicht

21. Juli 2026

Zuerst eingereicht, das die QC-Kriterien erfüllt hat

21. Juli 2026

Zuerst gepostet (Tatsächlich)

24. Juli 2026

Studienaufzeichnungsaktualisierungen

Letztes Update gepostet (Tatsächlich)

24. Juli 2026

Letztes eingereichtes Update, das die QC-Kriterien erfüllt

21. Juli 2026

Zuletzt verifiziert

1. Juli 2026

Mehr Informationen

Begriffe im Zusammenhang mit dieser Studie

Schlüsselwörter

Andere Studien-ID-Nummern

  • REC/RCR & AHS/25/043

Plan für individuelle Teilnehmerdaten (IPD)

Planen Sie, individuelle Teilnehmerdaten (IPD) zu teilen?

NEIN

Arzneimittel- und Geräteinformationen, Studienunterlagen

Studiert ein von der US-amerikanischen FDA reguliertes Arzneimittelprodukt

Nein

Studiert ein von der US-amerikanischen FDA reguliertes Geräteprodukt

Nein

Diese Informationen wurden ohne Änderungen direkt von der Website clinicaltrials.gov abgerufen. Wenn Sie Ihre Studiendaten ändern, entfernen oder aktualisieren möchten, wenden Sie sich bitte an register@clinicaltrials.gov. Sobald eine Änderung auf clinicaltrials.gov implementiert wird, wird diese automatisch auch auf unserer Website aktualisiert .

Klinische Studien zur Unspezifische Rückenschmerzen

Suchen Sie nach ähnlichen Studien

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

CROs by country

CROs in Malawi

Bedingungen

Seltene Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

Nahrungsergänzungsmittel

Sponsor / Mitarbeiter

Standorte

Abonnieren