An interventional study of Routine Physiotherapy and Dynamic Core Strengthening Exercises in Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain, sponsored by University of Lahore. Completed at 1 site in Pakistan. Open to participants aged 20 Years to 50 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-10-20.
Sponsored by University of Lahore · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
This research investigated the effectiveness of two different types of core strengthening exercises: dynamic versus traditional exercises. The participants comprised of individuals aged between 20-50 years, who have been suffering from chronic nonspecific low back pain for more than 12 weeks. The sample comprised of 70 participants, who were divided into two groups using random sampling. Group 1 performed dynamic core strengthening exercises, while Group 2 performed traditional core strengthening exercises. These two groups received routine physiotherapy, and were treated three times a week for a period of 8 weeks. The pain, back-related disability and assessment of lumbosacral stability was performed at the start and 8 weeks after the treatment using the Visual Analogue Scale, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Prone Instability Test, respectively. The aim of the study was to find out which of the two core strengthening exercise programs offered the participants more pain relief, and more improvement in lumbosacral stability and back-related disability.
Chronic non-specific low back pain can limit mobility and function in daily life. Core strengthening is often a component included in rehabilitation practices. Dynamic and traditional core strengthening methodologies can differ, however, their effectiveness when used in rehabilitation is comparably untested. The effects of dynamic and traditional core strengthening on pain, disability and lumbar stability were the primary focuses of this study.
In this module, we describe results from an open-label, randomised, two-arm, parallel-group, superiority trial on 70 adults from the general population. An equal number of participants in the two arms of the study (dynamic versus traditional core strengthening) was also offered routine physiotherapy. Each intervention was delivered three times a week for eight weeks. All participants were assessed for pain, disability and lumbar stability at baseline and at week 8. The assessments used were the Visual Analogue Scale, the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire and the Prone Instability Test. Analyses were conducted to determine differences between the study arms and assess clinically meaningful changes.
University of Lahore is the lead sponsor of 230 studies on the registry; 41 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Participants first received routine physiotherapy. This was then supplemented by assisted exercises for progressive dynamic core strengthening. During these exercises, participants alternated movements of the upper and lower limbs while in a four-point kneeling position. This treatment occurred three times per week for eight weeks.
Behavioral: Routine Physiotherapy · Behavioral: Dynamic Core Strengthening Exercises
Participants received standard physiotherapy and then strengthening exercises that were progressive in nature. These included bridging and straight leg raising. This treatment was completed over three supervised sessions per week for eight weeks.
Behavioral: Routine Physiotherapy · Behavioral: Traditional Core Strengthening Exercises
Routine physiotherapy included 10 minutes of lumbar heat application, static calf stretching, unilateral knee-to-chest exercise, pain-free straight-leg raises, and cross-leg stretching. This was provided prior to the scheduled core strengthening exercises.
Participants were required to maintain trunk stability while executing progressive alternate and opposite upper and lower limb movements. These exercises, done in a four-point kneeling position, were repeated in three sets of one-minute duration with one-minute interval rests. This treatment was applied three times a week for two months.
The participants performed progressive bridging and straight leg raising exercises. They performed each exercise in sets of three and rested for one minute between sets. This treatment was delivered three times a week for a duration of eight weeks.
Visual Analog Scale
Pain intensity was scaled using a 10-centimeter Visual Analog Scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (extreme pain). Pain is linearly proportional to pain score, and so, change from baseline was assessed for week 8, and a pain score move in the direction of decreasing pain was considered a clinically significant score change in the direction of decreasing pain if the score decreased by at least 2 centimeters to the left on the scale.
Time frame: Baseline and week 8
Roland-Morris disability questionnaire
The 24-item Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire was used for the evaluation of back-related disability with a score ranging from 0 to 24 with 24 indicating the highest disability. Roland-Morris scores from baseline to week 8 were analyzed for this study. It was determined a decrease of 3.5 or more points was clinically significant.
Time frame: Baseline and week 8
Prone instability test
Results were positive for lumbar instability or negative for lumbar stability based on the Prone Instability Test. Progressive changes in lumbar stability by way of test results taken at baseline and again at 8 weeks were examined.
Time frame: Baseline and week 8
Plan to share: No
From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
This study is completed, as verified in Mar 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.