Chronic Non-Specific Low Back PainCNLBPNCT07884396
Dynamic Versus Traditional Core Strengthening Exercises in Patients With Chronic Non-specific Low Back Pain
A study testing Routine Physiotherapy, Dynamic Core Strengthening Exercises and Traditional Core Strengthening Exercises in people with Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain, run by University of Lahore at 1 site in Pakistan.
Trial summary
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. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 20 to 50 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain
- What is being tested?
- Routine Physiotherapy, Dynamic Core Strengthening Exercises and Traditional Core Strengthening Exercises
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 70 participants
- Where
- 1 sitePakistan
- Study dates
- 15 Dec 2025to 28 Apr 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 20 to 50 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- Age between 20-50
- Chronic non-specific low back pain for more than 12 weeks
- Male or female
- Voluntary participation with a signed informed consent
- Ability to follow instructions of the prescribed exercises
Who cannot join
- Low back pain with a specific cause (i.e. fracture, tumor, infection, or back pain due to other inflammatory diseases)
- History of any spinal surgery
- Presence of severe neurological deficits
- Pregnancy
- Presence of severe cardiovascular or systemic diseases
- Cognitive impairment or inability to perform the prescribed exercises and follow instructions safely
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: The Efficiency of Dynamic Versus Traditional Core Strengthening Exercise in Pain Relief, Core Stability, and Functional Mobility in Patients With Chronic Non-specific Low Back Pain.
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.
Read the detailed description
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.
- Conditions
- Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain
- Being tested
- Routine Physiotherapy, Dynamic Core Strengthening Exercises, Traditional Core Strengthening Exercises
- Keywords
- Chronic low back pain, Core strengthening, Dynamic exercise, Traditional exercise, Physiotherapy, Lumbar stability, Rehabilitation
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Routine PhysiotherapyBehavioural
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.
Dynamic Core Strengthening ExercisesBehavioural
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.
Traditional Core Strengthening ExercisesBehavioural
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.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Dynamic Core Strengthening | Experimental | 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. Receives: Behavioral: Routine Physiotherapy; Behavioral: Dynamic Core Strengthening Exercises |
| Traditional Core Strengthening | Active comparator | 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. Receives: Behavioral: Routine Physiotherapy; Behavioral: Traditional Core Strengthening Exercises |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: 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.
Measured: Baseline and week 8
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted20 Oct 2026
- Study start15 Dec 2025
- Primary completion14 Apr 2026
- Study completion28 Apr 2026
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Chronic Non-Specific Low Back PainStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by University of LahoreThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- This study was implemented as a two-arm, parallel-group, 1:1, randomised superiority trial. Dynamic core strengthening plus routine physiotherapy, and traditional core strengthening plus routine physiotherapy were the two alternatives offered to participants. There were 24 visits scheduled for all participants, due to the eight-week duration and frequency of three visits per week. Each therapy session was allotted 35 to 40 minutes.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 70 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Lahore
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Waqar ul Hassan, MS MSK, Principal investigator, University of Lahore
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07884396
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- UOL/IREB/25/15/03/25
- Acronym
- CNLBP
- Status last verified
- Mar 2026
- First submitted
- 24 Jul 2026
- Last updated
- 20 Oct 2026
- Results posted
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Abdelhamid, A. S., Ali, F., Asal, M. S., & Salem, S. (2025). Effect of lumbar Stabilization Exercises Combined with Ball and Balloon Exercise in Treatment of Chronic Non-specific Low Back Pain: Randomized Clinical Trial. Bulletin of Physical Therapy Research and Studies, 3(1), 1-19. Amila Amila, Henny Siyapitri, Evarina Sembiring. (2021). The Effect of William Flexion Exercise on Reducing Pain Intensity For Elderly with Low Back Pain. International Journal of Nursing and Health Services (IJNHS), Volume 4 NO.1, pp 28-36e-ISSN: 2654-6310 DOI: https://doi.org/10.35654/ijnhs.v4i1.374 Bhattarai, D., & Khanna, A. (2025). Effect of Core Stabilization Exercises in Combination with Conventional Physiotherapy in Chronic Low Back Pain. Integrative and Complementary Therapies, 31(1), 12-16. Burton, A. K., Balagué, F., Cardon, G., Eriksen, H. R., Henrotin, Y., Lahad, A., Leclerc, A., Müller, G., van der Beek, A. J., & COST B13 Working Group on Guidelines for Prevention in Low Back Pain (2006). Chapter 2. European guidelines for prevention in low back pain : November 2004. European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 15 Suppl 2(Suppl 2), S136-S168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-006-1070-3 Custers, P., Van de Kelft, E., Eeckhaut, B., Sabbe, W., Hofman, A., Debuysscher, A., Van Acker, G., & Maes, G. (2024). Clinical Examination, Diagnosis, and Conservative Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain: A Narrative Review. Life, 14(9), 1090. https://doi.org/10.3390/life14091090 Dar SM, Muhardzi NM, Kamsan SS. The effectiveness of lumbar stabilisation exercises on pain and functional disability among patients with non-specific low back pain: a systematic review. IIUM Journal of Orofacial and Health Sciences. 2025 Feb 28;6(1):94-114. Das, Shazal & Khan, Abid & Islam, Muhammad & Alam, Nadira & Nesaruddin, & Alam, Md & Rahman, Tanvir & Shawon, Afroza & Hi
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 20 Oct 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Efficiency of Dynamic Versus Traditional Core Strengthening Exercise in Pain Relief, Core Stability, and Functional Mobility in Patients With Chronic Non-specific Low Back Pain.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07884396
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- CNLBP / UOL/IREB/25/15/03/25
- Conditions
- Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain
- Keywords
- Chronic low back pain, Core strengthening, Dynamic exercise, Traditional exercise, Physiotherapy, Lumbar stability, Rehabilitation
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 70 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of LahoreUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 15 Dec 2025 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 14 Apr 2026 (actual)
- Study completion
- 28 Apr 2026 (actual)
- First posted
- 20 Oct 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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.
Detailed description
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.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- This study was implemented as a two-arm, parallel-group, 1:1, randomised superiority trial. Dynamic core strengthening plus routine physiotherapy, and traditional core strengthening plus routine physiotherapy were the two alternatives offered to participants. There were 24 visits scheduled for all participants, due to the eight-week duration and frequency of three visits per week. Each therapy session was allotted 35 to 40 minutes.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Dynamic Core Strengthening | Experimental | Behavioral: Routine Physiotherapy, Behavioral: Dynamic Core Strengthening ExercisesParticipants 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. |
| Traditional Core Strengthening | Active comparator | Behavioral: Routine Physiotherapy, Behavioral: Traditional Core Strengthening ExercisesParticipants 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. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 20 to 50 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Age between 20-50
- Chronic non-specific low back pain for more than 12 weeks
- Male or female
- Voluntary participation with a signed informed consent
- Ability to follow instructions of the prescribed exercises
Key exclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Low back pain with a specific cause (i.e. fracture, tumor, infection, or back pain due to other inflammatory diseases)
- History of any spinal surgery
- Presence of severe neurological deficits
- Pregnancy
- Presence of severe cardiovascular or systemic diseases
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Routine PhysiotherapyRoutine 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. | Behavioural | Dynamic Core Strengthening, Traditional Core Strengthening |
| Dynamic Core Strengthening ExercisesParticipants 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. | Behavioural | Dynamic Core Strengthening |
| Traditional Core Strengthening ExercisesThe 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. | Behavioural | Traditional Core Strengthening |
Primary outcome
Visual Analog Scale
Time frame: Baseline and week 8
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.
Roland-Morris disability questionnaire
Time frame: Baseline and week 8
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.
Prone instability test
Time frame: Baseline and week 8
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.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 20 Oct 2026.
- BackgroundAbdelhamid, A. S., Ali, F., Asal, M. S., & Salem, S. (2025). Effect of lumbar Stabilization Exercises Combined with Ball and Balloon Exercise in Treatment of Chronic Non-specific Low Back Pain: Randomized Clinical Trial. Bulletin of Physical Therapy Research and Studies, 3(1), 1-19. Amila Amila, Henny Siyapitri, Evarina Sembiring. (2021). The Effect of William Flexion Exercise on Reducing Pain Intensity For Elderly with Low Back Pain. International Journal of Nursing and Health Services (IJNHS), Volume 4 NO.1, pp 28-36e-ISSN: 2654-6310 DOI: https://doi.org/10.35654/ijnhs.v4i1.374 Bhattarai, D., & Khanna, A. (2025). Effect of Core Stabilization Exercises in Combination with Conventional Physiotherapy in Chronic Low Back Pain. Integrative and Complementary Therapies, 31(1), 12-16. Burton, A. K., Balagué, F., Cardon, G., Eriksen, H. R., Henrotin, Y., Lahad, A., Leclerc, A., Müller, G., van der Beek, A. J., & COST B13 Working Group on Guidelines for Prevention in Low Back Pain (2006). Chapter 2. European guidelines for prevention in low back pain : November 2004. European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society, 15 Suppl 2(Suppl 2), S136-S168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-006-1070-3 Custers, P., Van de Kelft, E., Eeckhaut, B., Sabbe, W., Hofman, A., Debuysscher, A., Van Acker, G., & Maes, G. (2024). Clinical Examination, Diagnosis, and Conservative Treatment of Chronic Low Back Pain: A Narrative Review. Life, 14(9), 1090. https://doi.org/10.3390/life14091090 Dar SM, Muhardzi NM, Kamsan SS. The effectiveness of lumbar stabilisation exercises on pain and functional disability among patients with non-specific low back pain: a systematic review. IIUM Journal of Orofacial and Health Sciences. 2025 Feb 28;6(1):94-114. Das, Shazal & Khan, Abid & Islam, Muhammad & Alam, Nadira & Nesaruddin, & Alam, Md & Rahman, Tanvir & Shawon, Afroza & Hi
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Lumbar Stabilization Exercises With and Without YTWL (Scapular Stabilization Exercises) on Reducing Chronic Low Back Pain and Related Disability. A Randomized Clinical Trial,
Chronic Non Specific Mechanical Low Back Pain
Enrolling by invitation
Effects of 3-dimensional Versus Dynamic Myofascial Release Techniques With Lumbar Mobilization and Exercise Therapy Program in Chronic Non-specific Low Back Pain.
Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain, Myofascial Release
Active, not recruiting
Integrated Feldenkrais Method With and Without DNS for Chronic Low Back Pain in Females
Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP)
Not yet recruiting
Effects of Dead Bug Exercises With and Without Diaphragmatic Breathing in Patients With Chronic Non-specific Low Back Pain.
Non-specific Chronic Low Back Pain
Not yet recruiting
McGill Stabilization Exercises Versus Pilates for Chronic Low Back Pain
Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Waqar ul Hassan, MS MSK principal investigator
University of Lahore
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Routine Physiotherapy, Dynamic Core Strengthening Exercises and Traditional Core Strengthening Exercises in people with Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain, run by University of Lahore at 1 site in Pakistan.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 6 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 20 Oct 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Pakistan. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Visual Analog Scale (time frame: Baseline and week 8). The study lists 3 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07884396, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 20 Oct 2026.