Table 3 Summary of results for studies that investigated intervention effects on muscle activity patterns (specific muscle activity)
From: Modifying patterns of movement in people with low back pain -does it help? A systematic review
Muscle activity patterns (specific muscle activity) | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Study and intervention type (experimental vs comparison) |  | Movement pattern characteristics assessed Was there a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) in physical parametersbetweengroups at the end of the intervention period?(blank cell = not measured) |  | ||||||||
| Â | No. of Subjects | TA thickness | TA slide* | TA & IO feedfoward timing | Multifidus (LM) thickness | Ratio of specific muscle activitiy | Baseline differences between groups? | SMD and 95%CIs (negative values favour experimental/motor control group) | Pain | Activity | SMD and 95%CIs (negative values favour experimental group) |
Akbari 2008 Motor control exercise vs general exercise | 49 | No |  |  | No |  | No (TA & LM) Pain: Yes‡ Activity: Yes‡ | Multifidus thickness −0.21 (−0.74 to 0.33) TA thickness −0.30 (−0.86 to 0.26) | Yes ‡ | Yes ‡ | Pain −1.06 (−1.66 to −0.46) Activity −0.70 (−1.27 to −0.12) |
Hides 1996 Motor control exercise vs control | 39 |  |  |  | Yes †,|| |  | Insufficient data | Insufficient data | No †| No †| Insufficient data |
Ferreira 2010 Motor control exercise(MCE) vs general ex (GE) vs spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) | 34 |  |  |  |  | Yes ††| No | TA thickness ratio (contraction vs rest) MCE vs GE −0.29 (−0.44 to 0.57)††MCE vs SMT −0.70 (−0.42 to 0.12)††| No | No | Pain −0.32 (−0.44 to 0.54) MCE vs GE −0.51 (−0.42 to 0.30)MCE vs SMT Activity −0.25 (−1.11 to 0.61)MCE vs GE −0.63 (−0.42 to 0.19)MCE vs SMT |
Marshall 2008 Swiss ball vs general exercise | 50 |  |  | No |  |  | No | Right feedforward activation of TA + IO −0.77 (−1.59 to 0.04 ) Left feedforward activation of TA + IO −0.46 (−1.25 to 0.34) | No | Yes | Activity −0.77 (−1.34 to −0.19) |
O’Sullivan 1997 Motor control exercise vs general exercise | 44 |  |  |  |  | Yes | No | Ratio of TA + IO to RA −0.84 (−1.47 to −0.21) | Yes | No** | Pain −1.29 (−1.96 to −0.62) Activity −0.56 (−1.18 to 0.06) |
Vasseljen 2010, 2012 & Unsgaard-Tonsel 2010 Motor control (ultrasound guided exercise (US)) vs motor control (high load, sling exercise (SE)) vs general exercise (GE) | 109 |  | No | No |  | No | No§ | TA slide* 0.47 (−0.18 to 0.75) TA thickness ratio (contraction vs rest)#: TA 0.16 (−0.53 to 0.85) US vs GE IO 0.13 (−0.55 to 0.80) US vs GE EO 0.23 (−0.48 to 0.95) US vs GE TA feedforward timing:§§ Minimal or no effect size for most comparisons No significant feedforward differences of clinical relevance | No | No | Pain −0.46 (−1.09 to 0.18) US vs GE −0.28 (−0.90 to 0.35) US vs SE Activity −0.54 (−1.16 to 0.10) US vs GE-0.34 -0.98 to 0.30-0.01) US vs SE |