Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Randomized controlled trials (2) (remove)
Institute
Study design: Systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression.
Background and objectives: We systematically reviewed and delineated the existing evidence on sustainability effects of motor control exercises on pain intensity and disability in chronic low back pain patients when compared with an inactive or passive control group or with other exercises. Secondary aims were to reveal whether moderating factors like the time after intervention completion, the study quality, and the training characteristics affect the potential sustainability effects.
Methods: Relevant scientific databases (Medline, Web of Knowledge, Cochrane) were screened. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: All RCTs und CTs on chronic (≥ 12/13 weeks) nonspecific low back pain, written in English or German and adopting a longitudinal core-specific/stabilizing sensorimotor control exercise intervention with at least one pain intensity and disability outcome assessment at a follow-up (sustainability) timepoint of ≥ 4 weeks after exercise intervention completion.
Results and conclusions: From the 3,415 studies that were initially retrieved, 10 (2 CTs & 8 RCTs) on N = 1081 patients were included in the review and analyses. Low to moderate quality evidence shows a sustainable positive effect of motor control exercise on pain (SMD = -.46, Z = 2.9, p < .001) and disability (SMD = -.44, Z = 2.5, p < .001) in low back pain patients when compared to any control. The subgroups’ effects are less conclusive and no clear direction of the sustainability effect at short versus mid versus long-term, of the type of the comparator, or of the dose of the training is given. Low quality studies overestimated the effect of motor control exercises.
Mask induced airway resistance and carbon dioxide rebreathing is discussed to impact gas exchange and to induce discomfort and impairments in cognitive performance. N = 23 healthy humans (13 females, 10 males; 23.5 ± 2.1 years) participated in this randomized crossover trial (3 arms, 48-h washout periods). During interventions participants wore either a surgical face mask (SM), a filtering face piece (FFP2) or no mask (NM). Interventions included a 20-min siting period and 20 min steady state cycling on an ergometer at 77% of the maximal heart rate (HR). Hemodynamic data (HR, blood pressure), metabolic outcomes (pulse derived oxygen saturation, capillary carbon dioxide (pCO2), and oxygen partial pressure (pO2), lactate, pH, base excess), subjective response (ability to concentrate, arousal, perceived exertion) and cognitive performance (Stroop Test) were assessed. Compared to NM, both masks increased pCO2 (NM 31.9 ± 3.3 mmHg, SM = 35.2 ± 4.0 mmHg, FFP2 = 34.5 ± 3.8 mmHg, F = 12.670, p < 0.001) and decreased pH (NM = 7.42 ± 0.03, SM = 7.39 ± 0.03, FFP2 = 7.39 ± 0.04, F = 11.4, p < 0.001) during exercise. The FFP2 increased blood pressure during exercise (NM = 158 ± 15 mmHg, SM = 159 ± 16 mmHg, FFP2 = 162 ± 17 mmHg, F = 3.21, p = 0.050), the SM increased HR during sitting (NM = 70 ± 8 bpm, SM = 74 ± 8 bpm, FFP2 = 73 ± 8 bpm, F = 4.70, p = 0.014). No mask showed any comparative effect on other hemodynamic, metabolic, subjective, or cognitive outcomes. Mask wearing leads to slightly increased cardiovascular stress and elevated carbon dioxide levels during exercise but did not affect cognitive performance or wellbeing.