
==== Front
Int J Sports Phys Ther
Int J Sports Phys Ther
2159
International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy
2159-2896
NASMI Website: International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy

36793568
68024
10.26603/001c.68024
Original Research
Effectiveness of Spinal Stabilization Exercises on Movement Performance in Adults with Chronic Low Back Pain
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7630-5471
Alkhathami Khalid 1
Alshehre Yousef 2
Brizzolara Kelli 3
Weber Mark 3
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6873-3310
Wang-Price Sharon 3
1 Health Rehabilitation Shaqra University https://ror.org/05hawb687
2 Physical Therapy Department University of Tabuk https://ror.org/04yej8x59
3 School of Physical Therapy Texas Woman’s University https://ror.org/04dyzkj40
Corresponding author: Khalid Alkhathami PT, PhD Address: Department of Health Rehabilitation, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Shaqra University, Shaqra 11961, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia E-mail: kalkhthami@su.edu.sa Phone: +966566343732
1 2 2023
2023
18 1 169172
3 6 2022
23 12 2022
© The Author(s)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (4.0) which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Introduction

Low back pain (LBP) is a musculoskeletal disorder that affects more than 80% of people in the United States at least once in their lifetime. LBP is one of the most common complaints prompting individuals to seek medical care. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of spinal stabilization exercises (SSEs) on movement performance, pain intensity, and disability level in adults with chronic low back pain (CLBP).

Methods

Forty participants, 20 in each group, with CLBP were recruited and randomly allocated into one of two interventions: SSEs and general exercises (GEs). All participants received their assigned intervention under supervision one to two times per week for the first four weeks and then were asked to continue their program at home for another four weeks. Outcome measures were collected at baseline, two weeks, four weeks, and eight weeks, including the Functional Movement ScreenTM (FMSTM), Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), and Modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (OSW) scores.

Results

There was a significant interaction for the FMSTM scores (p = 0.016), but not for the NPRS and OSW scores. Post hoc analysis showed significant between-group differences between baseline and four weeks (p = 0.005) and between baseline and eight weeks (p = 0.026) favor SSEs over GEs. Further, the results demonstrated that all participants, regardless of group, had significant improvements in movement performance, pain intensity, and disability level over time.

Conclusion

The results of the study favor SSEs over GEs in improving movement performance for individuals with CLBP, specifically after four weeks of the supervised SSE program.

functional movement screen
pain intensity
disability level
lumbar spine
movement impairments
movement system
==== Body
pmcINTRODUCTION

Low back pain (LBP) is a musculoskeletal disorder that affects more than 80% of people in the United States at least once in their lifetime.1,2 LBP is considered to be one of the most common complaints prompting individuals to seek medical care. It is a very costly condition as the total direct and indirect medical spending for LBP is estimated between $100 and $200 billion a year.2 In addition, LBP is a leading cause of disability, contributing to work absenteeism and loss of productivity worldwide.3,4 Clinically, aberrant movement patterns such as a painful arc, lateral shifting, or Gower’s sign are associated with lumbar instability or movement coordination impairment.5,6 Furthermore, patients with CLBP often develop compensatory movement patterns to complete functional tasks, such as stepping over an obstacle and squatting.7 Therefore, observation and analysis of movement quality may be key elements in LBP management, particularly for patients with subacute and chronic LBP.8

The quality of movement has been measured in different ways, including the use of self-reported measures, impairment measures, and movement performance measures. Self-reported questionnaires are commonly administered because they are based on the patients’ own evaluation of their pain and function.9 However, these self-reported questionnaires do not always distinguish whether or why a specific task is performed properly.10 The self-reported questionnaires lack the description of movements and how the patient will perform the specific task and only address whether the patient is able to do it or not. Therefore, to address the inadequacy of self-reported questionnaires, functional performance measures that are capable of assessing the patient’s ability to perform specific functional tasks, as well as the ease and efficiency of performing these tasks, may be more appropriate to determine the quality of movement.

The Functional Movement ScreenTM (FMSTM) is a quantitative assessment tool that was developed to assess movement performance by identifying limitations and restrictions of movement patterns and to determine whether abnormal movements are present.11,12 Individuals or athletes with lower FMSTM scores also have been found to be associated with a higher risk of musculoskeletal injury.13–16 Because of its ability to evaluate and treat patients with injuries, the FMSTM has been advocated as a tool to be incorporated in rehabilitation.11 The FMSTM has been used as an outcome measure to examine the effects of an exercise program on healthy people and was found to be capable of capturing the improvement of functional movement patterns after an exercise program.17,18 Moreover, a recent study found that patients with CLBP demonstrated lower FMSTM scores as compared to healthy controls.7 Therefore, the FMSTM appears to be a useful functional assessment measure to identify movement deficits in patients with CLBP.7

A variety of treatments have been used by physical therapists for treating CLBP, including manual therapy, exercise programs (e.g., trunk coordination, strengthening, and endurance exercises), lower quarter nerve mobilization, traction, and patient education.19,20 Given the high prevalence of CLBP and high recurrence of LBP and the associated costs, clinicians have been advised to place a priority on interventions which can prevent recurrences and transitions of acute and subacute to CLBP.20 Among conservative treatments, therapeutic exercises are the most widely used for the management of LBP.21 A plethora of evidence has shown that therapeutic exercises are moderately effective for CLBP.22 A meta-analysis of exercise therapy for the treatment of LBP reported that therapeutic exercise was effective in decreasing pain in patients with CLBP.23 However, debates continue regarding what specific type of exercise may be most effective. More recently, spinal stabilization exercises (SSEs) have been advocated as the optimal choice in the rehabilitation of LBP because SSEs have a positive effect on supporting and stabilizing the lumbar spine, reducing pain, and enhancing proprioception as a result of LBP.24,25 In addition, SSEs were found to be more effective than GEs in decreasing pain and improving physical function in patients with LBP and were more effective than a placebo intervention in lumbar segmental instability in patients with LBP.26,27

However, the FMSTM has not yet been used to examine the effectiveness of physical therapy interventions in the LBP population. Although SSEs have been shown to be effective in treating patients with LBP, it is not known if SSEs would improve movement performance. To date, no study has been conducted for assessing the effects of SSEs on the quality of movement performance. Therefore, a randomized clinical trial was warranted to examine whether or not SSEs would have a favorable outcome on movement performance assessed by the FMSTM. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of SSEs on movement performance, pain intensity, and disability level in adults with CLBP.

METHODS

Study Design and Participants

This study was a double-blinded randomized clinical trial, comparing two exercise programs: SSE vs. GE. Approval from the investigators’ institutional review board was obtained prior to participant enrollment and data collection. To determine adequate sample size for this study, an a priori power analysis was performed using G*Power 3.1.9.28 Using a small-to-medium effect size of 0.20 and an alpha level of 0.05, a sample size of 40 participants was needed to ensure an adequate power level of 0.80 for a mixed-model 2 x 4 analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. Participants of any ethnicity, sex, or race who did not receive physical therapy at the time and within the prior three months, were recruited for this study from the local communities through flyers, word-of-mouth marketing, emails, and direct mail advertisements. Participants were adults of 18 to 65 years of age with LBP for a duration of more than 12 weeks.29 In addition, the eligible participants must have the ability to understand and speak English and had a minimum pain score of 2/10 in the past week using the NPRS. Participants who met inclusion criteria and agreed to participate in the study were asked to sign a written informed consent form.

Participants were excluded if they had (1) serious spinal conditions, such as fracture, infection, or tumor, (2) signs of nerve root compression, (3) a history of the lower extremity or lumbar spine surgery, (4) a history of hip, knee, or ankle pain in the previous two years, (5) current pregnancy by self-report, (6) systemic joint disease (e.g., rheumatologic or neurological disorders), (7) vestibular or other balance disorders, (8) ongoing treatment for the inner ear, sinus, or upper respiratory infection, (9) a history of falls or fear of falling, or (10) a need for any form of walking aids (e.g., cane or walker). A neurological examination was performed to further screen for each participant’s eligibility. Once the participants were deemed to be eligible for this study, their demographic characteristics (i.e., age, sex, height, weight, leg dominance) and pain history (e.g., pain duration, pain intensity) were collected. In addition, participants completed two questionnaires, the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System®-29 (PROM-29), which were used to describe the participants of this study.

Investigators

Two investigators were responsible for data collection for this study. The principal investigator, investigator #1, was the treating therapist who was responsible for group allocation and intervention administration and was blinded to the results of the FMSTM, NPRS, and OSW. Investigator #2 was responsible for collecting outcome measures and was blinded to each participant’s group assignment.

Functional Movement Screen TM

The FMSTM Test Kit (Functional Movement Systems Inc., Chatham, VA) was used to assess the movement performance of seven different movement patterns for this study. The FMSTM Test Kit consists of a two-inch by six-inch board, one four-foot-long dowel, two shorter dowels, and an elastic cord.30 The FMSTM includes seven test components: the deep squat, hurdle step, in-line lunge, shoulder mobility, active straight-leg-raise, trunk stability push-up, and rotary stability. Additionally, there are three clearance screens, including the impingement-clearing test, press-up clearing test, and posterior-rocking clearing test. These three clearance screen tests are used to determine the presence of pain associated with internal rotation and flexion of the shoulder, spinal flexion, and spinal extension. However, because this study focused on the LBP population, the impingement-clearing test was excluded (Appendix A).

In the original FMSTM scoring system, each of the seven test components is scored on a scale of 0 to 3: 3 when the test component is performed correctly without compensations, 2 when completion of the test component required compensatory movement, 1 when the participant is unable to perform the test component as required, and 0 when there is an occurrence of pain during the test component. However, as all of the participants had LBP in this study, the FMSTM scores were modified so that a zero score was given only when the participant reported an increase in the LBP, not simply for the presence of LBP. The validity and reliability of this modified FMSTM scoring system have been established previously with excellent inter-rater reliability in those with LBP (ICC = 0.99).31 Lastly, a composite score ranging from 0 to 21 is calculated to indicate the overall quality of movement performance, with a higher score indicating higher quality of movement performance. A score of 14 or lower on the original FMSTM scoring system indicates that the participant could have a higher risk for future injury.11,13

Outcome Measures

Each participant was asked to complete the two clinical outcome measures, the NPRS and the OSW, prior to the FMSTM test. During the FMSTM, each participant performed all seven test components in the same order as described by Cook et al. (2010). No warm-up was required before the start of the measurement. Each participant performed three trials for each of the seven FMSTM test components, and the best score from the three trials was recorded. However, the participants performed the two clearance screens only once. Therefore, when a participant had no pain with a clearance screen, the screen was considered negative. If there was an increase in LBP, not simply the presence of LBP with a clearance screen, the screen was considered positive, and the associated test was scored zero. Two FMSTM test components are associated with a clearance screen: the push-up test with the press-up clearance screen and the rotator stability test with the posterior rocking clearance screen. Five of the seven FMSTM test components were performed bilaterally: hurdle step, in-line lunge, shoulder mobility, active straight leg raise, and rotary stability test. Each participant performed these five tests first on the right side and then on the left side. For movements that were scored on both limbs simultaneously, the lower score was used to compute the composite score. The total score of the seven test components was added together to obtain a composite score of the FMSTM.

For each participant, the FMSTM, NPRS, and OSW measurements scores were collected at baseline and then two weeks, four weeks, and eight weeks after the initiation of treatment. Additionally, NPRS measurements were collected at the beginning of each session, before and after each test, and any aggravation of LBP was recorded throughout the entire testing procedure.

Interventions

Once the participants completed the FMSTM, they were assigned randomly into either the SSE group or the GE group. Participants in the SSE group were instructed in the SSEs, which were modeled on the SSE program designed by Hicks et al. (Appendix B).32 The SSE program of this study targeted the spinal stabilizer muscles, including the transversus abdominus, erector spine, lumbar multifidus, quadratus lumborum, and oblique abdominal muscles. The SSEs consisted of four categories. The exercises in the first category were abdominal bracing exercises, which were designed primarily to target the transversus abdominus muscle. The participant performed each abdominal bracing exercise up to 30 repetitions with a target hold time of eight seconds. The SSEs in the second category were quadruped exercises, which were designed to target both the erector spinae and multifidus. The participant performed each quadruped exercise up to 30 repetitions with a target hold time of eight seconds. The SSEs in the third category were prone-plank exercises, which were designed to primarily target the quadratus lumborum muscle. The participant performed each prone plank exercise up to 30 repetitions with a target hold time of eight seconds. Lastly, the SSEs in the fourth category were side-plank exercises, which were designed to train the oblique abdominal muscle. The participant performed each side-plank exercise up to 30 repetitions with a target hold time of eight seconds.

The GE program consisted of ROM and flexibility exercises of low back and lower extremities (Appendix C). There were four exercise categories, including knee-to-chest, lower trunk rotation, prone press-ups, and hamstring stretch. Each participant in this group was asked to perform each exercise up to 20 times with a target hold time of 10 seconds. The participants were instructed to perform all of the four exercises within a pain-free range.

At the initial treatment session, all participants were instructed to perform four exercises, one from each category. The exercise intensity progressed to the next level when the participant could perform the exercise with proper form and for the required repetitions and hold time. Once they progressed to the next level of the exercise, they discontinued the previous level of the exercise.

On the first visit, all participants were instructed in the exercises at a level that they were able to perform without pain. All participants were given an exercise log based on the assigned group to report their exercise compliance (Appendix D). In addition, all participants were given an exercise handout, which illustrated the exercises and listed the required exercise repetitions and holds time. All participants were asked to return one to two times per week for four weeks for exercise progression and to ensure that they were performing the exercises properly. The intervention frequency and duration were chosen to reflect common physical therapy practice. However, each participant was asked to perform their assigned exercise program at least five times per week, and exercises during the on-site visits were counted toward the required exercise frequency. After the four-week intervention, all participants were asked to continue their exercise program at home five times a week for another four weeks until their final follow-up visit at week 8. In addition, the participants were instructed on how to progress their exercises at home.

Data Analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics, Version 25 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Descriptive statistics, including frequency, means, and standard deviations, were calculated for the demographic data of the participants, including age, gender, height, weight, body mass index (BMI), the participants’ characteristics (e.g., duration of pain, distribution of pain, FABQ scores, and PROMIS scores), and the results of outcome measures (i.e., FMSTM, NPRS, and OSW scores). Independent t-and chi-square tests were used to determine if there was a difference in participants’ characteristics at baseline. Three separate 2 (group) x 4 (time) repeated measure (RM) ANOVAs were used to analyze the three outcome measures collected over four different time points. Post hoc analysis was performed if there was a significant interaction. The α level was set at 0.05 for all statistical analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 40 participants met the inclusion criteria and completed the eight-week exercise program (Figure 1).

135242 Figure 1. Consort diagram of participants’ screening, enrollment, and randomization.

The characteristics of the participants and baseline outcome measurements are summarized in (Table 1).

135243 Table 1. Participants’ Characteristics and Outcome Measurements (count or mean ± SD) at Baseline

	All participants (n = 40)	SSE Group
(n = 20)	GE Group
(n = 20)	p-value
(SSE vs. GE)	
Age (years)	39.9 ± 12.5	38.8 ± 11.8	41.0 ± 13.3	0.583	
Gender (male/female)	23/17	13/7	10/10	0.337	
Weight (kg)	79.8 ± 15.7	78.6 ± 15.6	81.1 ± 15.8	0.625	
Height (cm)	169.7 ± 10.1	167.2 ± 9.8	172.3 ± 10.0	0.112	
BMI	28.0 ± 6.6	28.6 ± 7.7	27.5 ± 5.5	0.612	
Average pain	4.7 ± 1.8	4.5 ± 1.4	5.0 ± 2.2	0.397	
LBP onset symptoms (Insidious/Traumatic)	36/4	18/2	18/2	1.000	
Duration of LBP (months)	95.2 ± 87.5	78.6 ± 87.7	111.9 ± 86.3	0.234	
Side of LBP(central/right/left)	14/13/13	6/7/7	8/6/6	0.803	
Distribution of pain					
LBP only	30 (75%)	15 (75%)	15 (75%)	1.000	
LBP + leg pain above the knee	1 (2.5%)	0	1 (5%)		
LBP + leg pain below the knee	9 (22.5%)	5 (25%)	4 (20%)	0.705	
PA duration (minute/week)	99.7 ± 145.1	86.0 ± 162.9	113.5 ± 127.8	0.556	
FABQ					
Work	8.4 ± 7.4	9.5 ± 6.7	7.2 ± 8.1	0.344	
Physical activity	10.1 ± 6.5	10.1 ± 7.4	10.1 ± 5.6	1.000	
PROMIS-29					
Physical function	43.4 ± 2.4	43.4 ± 2.4	43.4 ± 2.4	0.512	
Anxiety	51.2 ± 3.1	53.7 ± 2.8	51.2 ± 3.1	0.795	
Depression	49.0 ± 3.2	49.0 ± 3.2	49.0 ± 3.2	0.815	
Fatigue	55.1 ± 2.4	57.0 ± 2.3	53.1 ± 2.4	0.229	
Sleep disturbance	52.4 ± 3.4	52.4 ± 3.4	52.4 ± 3.4	0.695	
Social roles	51.9 ± 2.2	51.9 ± 2.2	53.7 ± 2.3	0.487	
Pain interference	57.1 ± 1.9	55.6 ± 1.9	57.1 ± 1.9	0.558	
Average pain intensity	4.3 ± 1.8	4.1 ± 1.2	4.4 ± 2.3	0.549	
Impact score	20.1 ± 6.6	19.9 ± 6.9	20.3 ± 6.5	0.852	
NPRS	3.5 ± 1.6	3.4 ± 1.3	3.5 ± 1.9	0.846	
OSW	18.1 ± 9.1	18.2 ± 9.1	18.1 ± 9.4	0.973	
Modified FMSTM score	10.7 ± 3.4	10.9 ± 3.2	10.6 ± 3.8	0.788	
Note: SSE = spinal stabilization exercises, GE = general exercises, BMI = body mass index, LBP = low back pain, PA = physical activity, FABQ = Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire, PROMIS-29 = Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, NPRS = Numeric Pain Rating Scale, OSW= Modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire, FMSTM = Functional Movement ScreenTM.

In general, the participants had mild LBP with an average NPRS score of 3.5 ± 1.6. There was no significant difference (p < 0.05) in any of the baseline participants’ characteristics, and outcome measurements between participants in the SSE group and those in the GE group (Table 1). Therefore, the two groups were considered similar at the beginning of the study.

Outcome Measurements

The means and standard deviations of all three outcome measurements at all four-time points are shown in (Table 2).

The ANOVA results showed a significant interaction of group by time, F (3, 114) = 3.599, p = 0.016, indicating that there was a significant difference in the modified FMSTM scores between groups over eight weeks. Next, separate 2 x 2 RM ANOVAs followed to examine the between-group differences between each two-time point. Consequently, significant between-group differences were found between baseline and four weeks (p = 0.005) and between baseline and eight weeks (p = 0.026) favor SSEs over GEs. In addition, there was a significant main effect of time. Post-hoc pair-wise comparisons showed that all participants made significant improvements in the modified FMSTM scores between the two adjacent time points: from baseline to two weeks (p = 0.011), from two weeks to four weeks (p = 0.001), and from four weeks to eight weeks (p = 0.008) (Figure 2).

135244 Figure 2. Movement performance using the modified Functional Movement Screen scoring system between the spinal stabilization exercise (SSE) group and the general exercise (GE) group at baseline, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks.

The RM ANOVA for the NPRS and OSW scores showed no significant interaction of group by time: F (3, 114) = 1.185, p = 0.319 and F (3, 114) = 0.538, p = 0.605, respectively.

However, there was a significant main effect of time (p < 0.001) for both the NPRS and OSW scores. Post-hoc pair-wise comparisons showed significantly lower NPRS scores from baseline to two weeks (p = 0.007), from two weeks to four weeks (p < 0.001), but no significant difference from four weeks to eight weeks (p = 0.818) (Figure 3).

135245 Figure 3. Pain intensity using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) between the spinal stabilization exercise (SSE) group and the general exercise (GE) group at baseline, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks.

Similarly, post-hoc pairwise showed significantly lower OSW scores from baseline to two weeks (p = 0.017), from two weeks to four weeks (p = 0.047), but no significant difference from four weeks to eight weeks (p = 0.117) (Figure 4).

135246 Figure 4. Disability levels using the Modified Oswestry Low Back Pain Disability Questionnaire (OSW) between the spinal stabilization exercise (SSE) group and the general exercise (GE) group at baseline, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks.

Home Exercise Program Compliance

There were no significant differences between the two groups in the supervised phase and the unsupervised phase. However, both groups had significantly better exercise compliance in the supervised phase (first four weeks) than they did in the unsupervised phase (last four weeks) (p = 0.044 for the SSE group, p = 0.025 for the GE group) (Table 3).

135247 Table 3. Home Exercise Compliance Rates (%, Mean ± SD).

	All
(n = 40)	SSE Group
(n = 20)	GE Group
(n = 20)	p-value
(SSE vs. GE)	
Supervised phase
(0 – 4 weeks)	85.9 ± 14.8	83.7 ± 13.9	88.0 ± 15.6	0.369	
Unsupervised phase
(5 – 8 weeks)	76.1 ± 22.7	74.7 ± 20.4	77.5 ± 25.4	0.707	
Entire study
0 – 8 weeks	81.0 ± 16.7	79.2 ± 14.8	82.7 ± 18.8	0.516	
p-value
(supervised vs. unsupervised)	0.002*	0.044*	0.0024*		
Note: SSE = spinal stabilization exercise, GE = general exercise.

DISCUSSION

Functional Performance

The modified FMSTM scores showed that participants who received SSEs had made significantly greater improvement on movement performance than those who received a GE program. The results suggest that the exercises prescribed to the individuals with CLBP should be specific to and target spinal stabilizers in order to improve quality of movement as compared to GEs, such as ROM and flexibility exercises. There is no published evidence regarding the effectiveness of the SSE program on movement performance in patients with LBP. However, this finding is in agreement with a previously published study by Bagherian et al., who demonstrated that the SSE program enhanced functional movement patterns in healthy, pain-free collegiate athletes, particularly for those who had low baseline FMSTM scores (i.e., ≤ 14).17 In contrast to the participants in the Bagherian et al. study, the participants in this study were those with CLBP. Although the participants in this study had low disability levels, the SSEs designed in this study were at a low level of difficulty and intensity as compared to those in the Bagherian et al. study, which included high-level exercises, such as back extension and sit-ups. Considering the improvement made by the participants in the SSE group, the dosage and progression of the SSEs seemed to be appropriate for this patient population.

The SSE group demonstrated a significantly greater improvement than the GE group in movement performance at the conclusion of the supervised phase (i.e., 4 weeks), and the differential effects were maintained at the end of the study period (i.e., 8 weeks). This finding is consistent with other studies which also found that a four-week SSE program was effective for enhancing stability and functional capabilities, as well as for reducing pain intensity in patients with CLBP.33,34 It was hypothesized that four weeks were necessary to alter neuromuscular control of the spinal column, and therefore improve inter-segmental spinal stability.34 Further examination of each of the seven test components at baseline, week 4, and week 8 revealed that the SSE group appeared to have greater improvement on the rotary stability test and the trunk stability push-up test than the GE group. Not surprisingly, these two test components were designed specifically to assess an individual’s spinal stability, which is consistent with the goal of the SSE program.12

The results of this study support that SSEs were effective in enhancing the spinal stabilizers, thus improving movement performance. Deficits in the spinal stabilizers are considered to be the primary cause of spinal instability leading to LBP.35 Specifically, the TrA and LM muscles are considered to play an essential role in lumbopelvic stabilization. Impairments inactivation and coordination of the TrA and LM muscles have been identified in patients with CLBP and are believed to contribute to their poor movement coordination.36–38 Therefore, strength and proper activation of these muscles are necessary for the stability of the lumbar spine in order to restore proper functional movements for this patient population, as indicated by the results of this study.37–41 Furthermore, the literature supports the use of SSEs for individuals with LBP for improving neuromuscular control and endurance, retraining and strengthening deep spinal muscles, reducing pain, and enhancing proprioception related to the dysfunction.24,25,42

Pain Intensity and Disability Level

At eight weeks, the SSE group had a reduction in NPRS score of 1.4 points from baseline, and the GE group had a reduction in NPRS score of 1.6 points from baseline. Neither group demonstrated a clinically meaningful change in pain intensity that exceeded the minimal detectable change (MDC) or minimal clinically important change (MCID) score of 2 for the NPRS in individuals with LBP.43 Although there was no difference in pain between groups, there were differences in the modified FMSTM scores between groups. For individuals with CLBP who have low levels of pain, the NPRS may not be a useful outcome measure to examine treatment effects. Instead, a high functional level test, such as the FMSTM, may be necessary to detect different treatment effects.

Similar to the result of the NPRS scores, the results of the study indicated no significant differences in disability reduction between the SSE program and the GE program over eight weeks. This result implies that both exercise interventions had an equivalent effect on functional improvement and disability reduction. Both groups were considered to have a minimal disability level at baseline (OSW score:18.2 for the SEE group and 18.1 for the GE group). Although the participants in this study reported minimal disability levels at baseline, all participants demonstrated significant improvement in disability levels, in the first four weeks. Although neither group demonstrated a clinically meaningful change in their disability level that exceeded the MDC of 10.5 for the OSW in individuals with LBP, only the SSE group’s disability improvement (OSW score: 6.2 points) exceeded the MCID of 6 points.6,44 The minimal pain intensity and disability levels at baseline could have contributed lack of clinically meaningful changes. However, participants with high pain and disability levels may not be able to complete the FMSTM.

Implications for Clinical Practice

The FMSTM with the modified scoring system may be a useful outcome measure for assessing the quality of movement, specifically in adults with LBP. Identification and quantification of abnormal movement patterns may allow therapists to address movement impairments in their plan of care.

Limitations of the Study

There were limitations in this study. The participants in this study had low NPRS and OSW scores. Therefore, the results of this study only can be generalized to those individuals with CLBP with low pain intensity and mild disability levels. However, participants with a moderate or moderate-to-high level of pain may not be able to complete or perform the FMSTM tests or SSE program. Furthermore, this study was conducted on participants between 18 and 65 years old. Therefore, this study might not be generalized to patients over 65 years old. The other limitation is that the participants were not restricted from other physical activities although participants were advised not to engage in any activity that might increase their LBP. However, the randomization procedure may have minimized this uncontrolled factor. Lastly, medication use was not controlled in this study in order to reflect the current clinical practice collected at baseline. However, at each follow-up visit, all participants were asked if they had taken any medication because of their LBP. Future studies should examine the effects of eight-week supervised treatments (e.g., SSEs) in order to achieve better outcomes and maximize the benefits of the treatment. In addition, it is recommended that future studies should examine the effectiveness of SSEs on the movement performance of individuals who have moderate and higher pain intensity of LBP and disability levels. Furthermore, longer-term follow-ups are recommended for future studies to examine the effects of physical therapy interventions on movement performance in patients with CLBP.

Conclusion

The results of this study suggest that SSEs are more effective in enhancing movement performance than GEs over a period of eight weeks in individuals with CLBP. In addition, all participants in both groups demonstrated a significant reduction in pain intensity and disability level while attending supervised PT sessions in the first four weeks of the study. However, these significant improvements seemed to be diminished during the unsupervised PT sessions for the last four weeks when the participants stopped meeting regularly with the investigators. Moreover, this study demonstrated that supervised SSE sessions seemed to maximize the benefits of this treatment including improving the quality of movement and reducing the aberrant movement that is associated with CLBP.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. In addition, the results of the study are presented clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation, and the statement that the results of the present study do not constitute an endorsement by ACSM.

Supplementary Material

Appendix A. Functional Movement ScreenTM

Appendix B. Spinal Stabilization Exercises with Progression Criteria (Adapted from Hicks et al., 2005)

Appendix C. General Exercise Program with Criteria of Progression

Appendix D. Compliance log

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the Texas Physical Therapy Foundation for funding this project.
==== Refs
Non-specific low back pain The Lancet Balagué Federico Mannion Anne F Pellisé Ferran Cedraschi Christine 2 2012
379 9814 482 491 0140-6736 10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60610-7 10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60610-7
The rising prevalence of chronic low back pain Archives of Internal Medicine Freburger Janet K. Holmes George M. Agans Robert P. Jackman Anne M. Darter Jane D. Wallace Andrea S. Castel Liana D. Kalsbeek William D. Carey Timothy S. 9 2 2009
169 3 251 258 0003-9926 10.1001/archinternmed.2008.543 10.1001/archinternmed.2008.543 19204216
The global burden of cancer 2013 JAMA Oncology Fitzmaurice Christina Dicker Daniel Pain Amanda Hamavid Hannah Moradi-Lakeh Maziar MacIntyre Michael F. Allen Christine Hansen Gillian Woodbrook Rachel Wolfe Charles Hamadeh Randah R. Moore Ami Werdecker Andrea Gessner Bradford D. Te Ao Braden McMahon Brian Karimkhani Chante Yu Chuanhua Cooke Graham S. Schwebel David C. Carpenter David O. Pereira David M. Nash Denis Kazi Dhruv S. De Leo Diego Plass Dietrich Ukwaja Kingsley N. Thurston George D. Yun Jin Kim Simard Edgar P. Mills Edward Park Eun-Kee Catalá-López Ferrán deVeber Gabrielle Gotay Carolyn Khan Gulfaraz Hosgood H. Dean III Santos Itamar S. Leasher Janet L. Singh Jasvinder Leigh James Jonas Jost B. Sanabria Juan Beardsley Justin Jacobsen Kathryn H. Takahashi Ken Franklin Richard C. Ronfani Luca Montico Marcella Naldi Luigi Tonelli Marcello Geleijnse Johanna Petzold Max Shrime Mark G Younis Mustafa Yonemoto Naohiro Breitborde Nicholas Yip Paul Pourmalek Farshad Lotufo Paulo A. Esteghamati Alireza Hankey Graeme J. Ali Raghib Lunevicius Raimundas Malekzadeh Reza Dellavalle Robert Weintraub Robert Lucas Robyn Hay Roderick Rojas-Rueda David Westerman Ronny Sepanlou Sadaf G. Nolte Sandra Patten Scott Weichenthal Scott Abera Semaw Ferede Fereshtehnejad Seyed-Mohammad Shiue Ivy Driscoll Tim Vasankari Tommi Alsharif Ubai Rahimi-Movaghar Vafa Vlassov Vasiliy V. Marcenes W. S. Mekonnen Wubegzier Melaku Yohannes Adama Yano Yuichiro Artaman Al Campos Ismael MacLachlan Jennifer Mueller Ulrich Kim Daniel Trillini Matias Eshrati Babak Williams Hywel C. Shibuya Kenji Dandona Rakhi Murthy Kinnari Cowie Benjamin Amare Azmeraw T. Antonio Carl Abelardo Castañeda-Orjuela Carlos van Gool Coen H. Violante Francesco Oh In-Hwan Deribe Kedede Soreide Kjetil Knibbs Luke Kereselidze Maia Green Mark Cardenas Rosario Roy Nobhojit Tillmann Taavi Li Yongmei Krueger Hans Monasta Lorenzo Dey Subhojit Sheikhbahaei Sara Hafezi-Nejad Nima Kumar G. Anil Sreeramareddy Chandrashekhar T. Dandona Lalit Wang Haidong Vollset Stein Emil Mokdad Ali Salomon Joshua A. Lozano Rafael Vos Theo Forouzanfar Mohammad Lopez Alan Murray Christopher Naghavi Mohsen 1 7 2015
1 4 505 527 2374-2437 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.0735 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.0735 26181261
Low back pain in healthy postmenopausal women and the effect of physical activity: A secondary analysis in a randomized trial PloS One Marini Mirca Bendinelli Benedetta Assedi Melania Occhini Daniela Castaldo Maria Fabiano Jacopo Petranelli Marco Migliolo Mario Monaci Marco Masala Giovanna 10 5 2017
12 5 e0177370 1932-6203 10.1371/journal.pone.0177370 10.1371/journal.pone.0177370 28489877
Clinical observation of standing trunk movements: What do the aberrant movement patterns tell us? Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Biely Scott A. Silfies Sheri P. Smith Susan S. Hicks Gregory E. 4 2014
44 4 262 272 0190-6011 10.2519/jospt.2014.4988 10.2519/jospt.2014.4988 24450372
A comparison of five low back disability questionnaires: Reliability and responsiveness Physical Therapy Davidson Megan Keating Jennifer L 1 1 2002
82 1 8 24 0031-9023 10.1093/ptj/82.1.8 10.1093/ptj/82.1.8
Differences in performance on the functional movement screen between chronic low back pain patients and healthy control subjects Journal of Physical Therapy Science Ko Min-Joo Noh Kyung-Hee Kang Min-Hyeok Oh Jae-Seop 2016
28 7 2094 2096 0915-5287 10.1589/jpts.28.2094 10.1589/jpts.28.2094 27512272
Description of movement quality in patients with low back pain: A qualitative study as a first step to a practical definition Physiotherapy Theory and Practice van Dijk Margriet J.H. Smorenburg Nienke T.A. Visser Bart Nijhuis–van der Sanden Maria W.G. Heerkens Yvonne F. 14 2 2017
33 3 227 237 0959-3985 10.1080/09593985.2017.1282998 10.1080/09593985.2017.1282998
The assessment of function: How is it measured? A clinical perspective Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy Reiman Michael P Manske Robert C 5 2011
19 2 91 99 1066-9817 10.1179/106698111x12973307659546 10.1179/106698111x12973307659546 22547919
Measuring and managing pain and performance Manual Therapy Simmonds Maureen J. 8 2006
11 3 175 179 1356-689X 10.1016/j.math.2006.03.002 10.1016/j.math.2006.03.002 16870488
Functional movement screening: The use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function‐part 1 Int J Sports Phys Ther Gray Cook L B Hoogenboom B J Voight M 2014
9 3 396 24944860
Functional movement screening: The use of fundamental movements as an assessment of function‐part 2 Int J Sports Phys Ther Gray Cook L B Hoogenboom B J Voight M 2014
9 4 549 25133083
Modifiable risk factors predict injuries in firefighters during training academies Work Butler R.J. Contreras M. Burton L.C. Plisky P.J. Goode A. Kiesel K. 2013
46 1 11 17 23324700
Use of a functional movement screening tool to determine injury risk in female collegiate athletes N Am J Sports Phys Ther Chorba R.S. Chorba D.J. Bouillon L.E. Overmyer C.A. Landis J.A. 2010
5 2 47 21589661
Association between ROWING injuries and the functional movement SCREEN™ in female collegiate division I ROWERS Int J Sports Phys Ther Clay H. Mansell J. Tierney R. 2016
11 3 345 27274420
Functional movement test scores improve following a standardized off-season intervention program in professional football players Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports Kiesel K. Plisky P. Butler R. 10 3 2011
21 2 287 292 0905-7188 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.01038.x 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.01038.x
The effect of core stability training on functional movement patterns in college athletes Journal of Sport Rehabilitation Bagherian Sajad Ghasempoor Khodayar Rahnama Nader Wikstrom Erik A. 7 2019
28 5 444 449 1056-6716 10.1123/jsr.2017-0107 10.1123/jsr.2017-0107 29405798
Active duty firefighters can improve functional movement screen (FMS) scores following an 8-week individualized client workout program Work Stanek Justin M. Dodd Daniel J. Kelly Adam R. Wolfe Alex M. Swenson Ryan A. 14 3 2017
56 2 213 220 1051-9815 10.3233/wor-172493 10.3233/wor-172493
Non-pharmacological interventions for chronic pain in multiple sclerosis Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Amatya Bhasker Young Jamie Khan Fary 19 12 2018
2018 12 1465-1858 10.1002/14651858.cd012622.pub2 10.1002/14651858.cd012622.pub2 30567012
Low back pain: Clinical practice guidelines linked to the international classification of functioning, disability, and health from the Orthopaedic section of the american physical therapy association Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy Delitto Anthony George Steven Z. Van Dillen Linda R. Whitman Julie M. Sowa Gwendolyn Shekelle Paul Denninger Thomas R. Godges Joseph J. 4 2012
42 4 A1 A57 0190-6011 10.2519/jospt.2012.42.4.a1 10.2519/jospt.2012.42.4.a1 22466247
Exercises for nonspecific low back pain treatment Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia Lizier Daniele Tatiane Perez Marcelo Vaz Sakata Rioko Kimiko 12 2012
62 6 842 846 0034-7094 10.1590/s0034-70942012000600008 10.1590/s0034-70942012000600008
Medications for acute and chronic low back pain: A review of the evidence for an american pain society/american college of physicians clinical practice guideline Annals of Internal Medicine Chou Roger Huffman Laurie Hoyt 2 10 2007
147 7 505 514 0003-4819 10.7326/0003-4819-147-7-200710020-00008 10.7326/0003-4819-147-7-200710020-00008
Exercise therapy for treatment of non-specific low back pain Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Hayden Jill van Tulder Maurits W Malmivaara Antti Koes Bart W 20 7 2005
2005 3 1465-1858 10.1002/14651858.cd000335.pub2 10.1002/14651858.cd000335.pub2
Core stability: The centerpiece of any training program Current Sports Medicine Reports Bliss Lisa S. Teeple Peter 6 2005
4 3 179 183 1537-890X 10.1097/01.csmr.0000306203.26444.4e 10.1097/01.csmr.0000306203.26444.4e 15907272
Association of physical performance and fear-avoidance beliefs in adults with chronic low back pain Ann Med Res Panhale V.P. Gurav R.S. Nahar S.K. 2016
6 6 375 379
A meta-analysis of core stability exercise versus general exercise for chronic low back pain PloS One Wang Xue-Qiang Zheng Jie-Jiao Yu Zhuo-Wei Bi Xia Lou Shu-Jie Liu Jing Cai Bin Hua Ying-Hui Wu Mark Wei Mao-Ling Shen Hai-Min Chen Yi Pan Yu-Jian Xu Guo-Hui Chen Pei-Jie 17 12 2012
7 12 e52082 1932-6203 10.1371/journal.pone.0052082 10.1371/journal.pone.0052082 23284879
Efficacy of segmental stabilization exercise for lumbar segmental instability in patients with mechanical low back pain: A randomized placebo controlled crossover study North American Journal of Medical Sciences Kumar Senthil P. 2011
3 10 456 461 1947-2714 10.4297/najms.2011.3456 10.4297/najms.2011.3456 22363083
G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences Behavior Research Methods Faul Franz Erdfelder Edgar Lang Albert-Georg Buchner Axel 5 2007
39 2 175 191 1554-351X 10.3758/bf03193146 10.3758/bf03193146 17695343
Multidisciplinary biopsychosocial rehabilitation for subacute low back pain Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Marin Teresa J Van Eerd Dwayne Irvin Emma Couban Rachel Koes Bart W Malmivaara Antti van Tulder Maurits W Kamper Steven J 28 6 2017
2017 6 1465-1858 10.1002/14651858.cd002193.pub2 10.1002/14651858.cd002193.pub2 28656659
Movement: Functional movement systems: Screening, assessment. Corrective Strategies Cook G. On Target Publications Aptos, CA 2010

Reliability and validity of the functional movement screen™ with a modified scoring system for young adults with low back pain International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy Alkhathami Khalid Alshehre Yousef Wang-Price Sharon Brizzolara Kelli 1 6 2021
16 3 620 627 2159-2896 10.26603/001c.23427 10.26603/001c.23427 35655963
Preliminary development of a clinical prediction rule for determining which patients with low back pain will respond to a stabilization exercise program Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Hicks Gregory E. Fritz Julie M. Delitto Anthony McGill Stuart M. 9 2005
86 9 1753 1762 0003-9993 10.1016/j.apmr.2005.03.033 10.1016/j.apmr.2005.03.033 16181938
Effect of core stabilization exercises versus conventional exercises on pain and functional status in patients with non-specific low back pain: A randomized clinical trial Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation Inani Sumit B. Selkar Sohan P. 28 1 2013
26 1 37 43 1878-6324 10.3233/bmr-2012-0348 10.3233/bmr-2012-0348
Effect of spinal stabilization exercise on dynamic postural control and visual dependency in subjects with chronic non-specific low back pain Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies Salavati Mahyar Akhbari Behnam Takamjani Ismail Ebrahimi Bagheri Hossein Ezzati Kamran Kahlaee Amir Hossein 4 2016
20 2 441 448 1360-8592 10.1016/j.jbmt.2015.10.003 10.1016/j.jbmt.2015.10.003 27210863
The effects of gluteus muscle strengthening exercise and lumbar stabilization exercise on lumbar muscle strength and balance in chronic low back pain patients Journal of Physical Therapy Science Jeong Ui-Cheol Sim Jae-Heon Kim Cheol-Yong Hwang-Bo Gak Nam Chan-Woo 2015
27 12 3813 3816 0915-5287 10.1589/jpts.27.3813 10.1589/jpts.27.3813 26834359
Trunk muscles strength as a risk factor for nonspecific low back pain: A pilot study Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine Cho Kang Hee Beom Jae Won Lee Tae Sung Lim Jun Ho Lee Tae Heon Yuk Ji Hyun 2014
38 2 234 240 2234-0645 10.5535/arm.2014.38.2.234 10.5535/arm.2014.38.2.234 24855618
Inefficient muscular stabilization of the lumbar spine associated with low back pain: A motor control evaluation of transversus abdominis Spine Hodges Paul W. Richardson Carolyn A. 11 1996
21 22 2640 2650 0362-2436 10.1097/00007632-199611150-00014 10.1097/00007632-199611150-00014
Clinical spinal instability and low back pain Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology Panjabi Manohar M. 8 2003
13 4 371 379 1050-6411 10.1016/s1050-6411(03)00044-0 10.1016/s1050-6411(03)00044-0 12832167
Core strength training for patients with chronic low back pain Journal of Physical Therapy Science Chang Wen-Dien Lin Hung-Yu Lai Ping-Tung 2015
27 3 619 622 0915-5287 10.1589/jpts.27.619 10.1589/jpts.27.619 25931693
The effects of abdominal muscle coactivation on lumbar spine stability Spine Gardner-Morse Mack G. Stokes Ian A. 1 1998
23 1 86 91 0362-2436 10.1097/00007632-199801010-00019 10.1097/00007632-199801010-00019
Electromyographic and kinetic analysis of two abdominal muscle performance tests Physiotherapy Theory and Practice Haladay Douglas E. Denegar Craig R. Miller Sayers J. Challis John 14 10 2015
31 8 587 593 0959-3985 10.3109/09593985.2015.1062945 10.3109/09593985.2015.1062945
Quantification of lumbar stability by using 2 different abdominal activation strategies Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Grenier Sylvain G. McGill Stuart M. 1 2007
88 1 54 62 0003-9993 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.014 10.1016/j.apmr.2006.10.014
Responsiveness of the numeric pain rating scale in patients with low back pain Spine Childs John D. Piva Sara R. Fritz Julie M. 6 2005
30 11 1331 1334 0362-2436 10.1097/01.brs.0000164099.92112.29 10.1097/01.brs.0000164099.92112.29 15928561
A comparison of a modified oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire and the quebec back pain disability scale Physical Therapy Fritz Julie M Irrgang James J 1 2 2001
81 2 776 788 0031-9023 10.1093/ptj/81.2.776 10.1093/ptj/81.2.776
