Table 4 Summary of results for studies that investigated intervention effects on the Flexion relaxation response (FRR)
From: Modifying patterns of movement in people with low back pain -does it help? A systematic review
Muscle activity patterns of FRR (electrical patterns of activity in extensor muscles during flexion and return from flexion) (Standardised mean difference and 95% confidence intervals, negative values favour experimental group) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Study and intervention type | Study details | Movement pattern Was there a statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) in physical parametersbetweengroups? | Health outcomes Was there a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) in health outcomes between groups? groups? | |||||
| Â | No. of subjects | Baseline differences between groups? | FRR* Upper lumbar (T12-L3/4) | FRR* Lower lumbar (L4-S1) | Angle of onset and cessation for FRR | Extension vs flexion EMG ratio | Pain | Activity |
Lalanne 2009 ‡ Manipulation vs sham | 27 | No | Yes ↑ -1.40 (−2.24, -0.56) | No | No | Not measured | No | Not measured |
Mannion 1999 & 2001 Physiotherapyvs aerobics Physiotherapy vs device strength training | 99 | No | No †Insufficient data | No †Insufficient data | Not measured | Not measured | No | No |
Marshall 2008 Swiss ball vs general exercise | 50 | No | No | Yes ↑ FRR in favour of intervention group −1.60 (−2.25, -0.94) | Not measured | Not measured | No | Yes Activity −0.77 (−1.34 to −0.19) |
Ritvanen 2007 Traditional bone setting vs physiotherapy | 61 | (Intervention group had right vs left differences pre and post treatment) | No | No (both groups showed ↓ FRR post intervention | Not measured | No Trend towards increase for both groups | No | No |