This study aims to investigate the interactive effects of two core stability training strategies-abdominal drawing-in manoeuvre (ADIM) and Dynamic Neuromusculoskeletal Stabilization abdominal expansion (DNS-AE)-and two instructional approaches (verbal cueing and manual facilitation) on training outcomes in individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain. A 2×2 factorial randomized controlled trial design will be employed. Ninety-six participants with chronic non-specific low back pain will be randomly allocated, using block randomization, to one of four intervention groups in equal proportions. All groups will receive a 4-week intervention program, with training conducted twice per week. Outcome measures will be assessed at four time points: before the intervention (baseline), immediately after the first training session, at the completion of the 4-week intervention, and at a 3-month follow-up, to evaluate short-term and mid-term effects as well as the sustainability of training outcomes.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE
Enrollment
96
Abdominal drawing-in manoeuvre (ADIM) training is a core stability exercise strategy emphasizing selective activation and coordination of the deep abdominal musculature to enhance local trunk stability. Participants receive individualized, one-on-one training delivered by licensed physical therapists, conducted twice weekly for 4 weeks. Training is performed across functional positions and task-specific movements, with instruction provided using either verbal cueing or manual facilitation according to group allocation.
Dynamic Neuromusculoskeletal Stabilization abdominal expansion (DNS-AE) training focuses on coordinated breathing and abdominal expansion to facilitate intra-abdominal pressure regulation and integrated postural control. Participants receive individualized, one-on-one training delivered by licensed physical therapists, conducted twice weekly for 4 weeks. Training is performed across functional positions and task-specific movements, with instruction provided using either verbal cueing or manual facilitation according to group allocation.
Pain intensity
Pain intensity assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), ranging from 0 to 10, where 0 indicates no pain and 10 indicates the worst pain imaginable, with higher scores indicating greater pain intensity.
Time frame: At baseline, after the first week of intervention, and at the end of the 4-week intervention.
Movement control performance
Movement control performance assessed using the Nine-Item Movement Control Test Battery, which evaluates movement quality during standardized functional movement tasks. Each item is scored according to predefined error-based criteria, and item scores are summed to produce a total score ranging from 0 to 93, with higher scores indicating poorer movement control performance.
Time frame: At baseline, after the first week of intervention, and at the end of the 4-week intervention.
Disability related to low back pain
Disability assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), with total scores ranging from 0 %to 100%, where higher scores indicate greater disability.
Time frame: At baseline, at the end of the 4-week intervention, and at 3-month follow-up.
Patient-specific functional ability
Functional ability assessed using the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS), with scores ranging from 0 to 10, where 0 indicates inability to perform the activity and 10 indicates the ability to perform the activity at the pre-injury or normal level, with higher scores indicating better functional ability.
Time frame: At baseline, at the end of the 4-week intervention, and at 3-month follow-up.
Perceived movement difficulty assessed using the Perceived Difficulty Index (PDI).
Perceived difficulty during movement performance assessed using the Perceived Difficulty Index (PDI). Participants rate the level of difficulty experienced during the movement tasks on a numeric rating scale ranging from 0 to 10, where 0 indicates no perceived difficulty and 10 indicates extreme difficulty, with higher scores indicating greater perceived difficulty.
Time frame: At baseline, after the first week of intervention, and at the end of the 4-week intervention.
Central sensitization symptoms
Symptoms related to central sensitization assessed using the Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI), with total scores ranging from 0 to 100, where higher scores indicate greater symptom severity related to central sensitization.
Time frame: At baseline and at the end of the 4-week intervention.
Fear-avoidance beliefs
Fear-avoidance beliefs assessed using the Fear-Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ), with total scores ranging from 0 to 96, where higher scores indicate greater fear-avoidance beliefs.
Time frame: At baseline and at the end of the 4-week intervention.
Pain catastrophizing
Pain catastrophizing assessed using the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), with total scores ranging from 0 to 52, where higher scores indicate greater pain catastrophizing.
Time frame: At baseline and at the end of the 4-week intervention.
Pressure pain threshold
Pressure pain threshold (PPT) assessed using a pressure algometer.
Time frame: At baseline and at the end of the 4-week intervention.
Global perceived change
Overall perceived change assessed using the Global Rating of Change (GROC) scale, ranging from -7 to +7, where negative scores indicate perceived worsening, 0 indicates no change, and positive scores indicate perceived improvement, with higher scores indicating greater perceived improvement.
Time frame: At the end of the 4-week intervention and at 3-month follow-up.
Learning acquisition during training
Learning acquisition assessed by the instructor after each training session using a numeric rating scale from 0 to 10.
Time frame: After each training session during the 4-week intervention.
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.