Effectiveness of dynamic neuromuscular stabilization training for alleviating nonspecific low back pain: a meta-analysis


Abstract

Background. Nonspecific Low Back Pain (NLBP) is one of the leading causes of functional impairment and disability worldwide, imposing substantial challenges to public health and socioeconomic systems. Dynamic Neuromuscular Stabilization (DNS), a rehabilitation approach grounded in developmental movement patterns and neuromuscular control theory, has recently been applied in the management of NLBP. However, systematic evidence quantitatively evaluating the therapeutic effectiveness of DNS remains limited. This study aimed to synthesize findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) through meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of DNS training in alleviating NLBP.

Methods. A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) was conducted to identify RCTs published up to September 22, 2025. The search and screening process adhered to PRISMA guidelines, and the protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251152728). Two independent researchers performed study selection and data extraction from September 23 to October 5, 2025. A total of eight studies involving 289 participants were included. Meta-analysis, subgroup analysis, and sensitivity analysis were performed using Review Manager 5.4 and Stata 17.0. Publication bias was assessed using Begg’s test.

Results. The pooled analysis demonstrated that DNS training significantly reduced pain in patients with NLBP (Standardized Mean Difference = -1.17, 95% CI -1.85 to -0.48). Subgroup analyses indicated that variations in intervention strategies (DNS alone vs. combined interventions), intervention duration (4, 6, or 8 weeks), intervention frequency (<4 sessions/week vs. ≥4 sessions/week), and intervention intensity (<45 minutes/session vs. ≥45 minutes/session) failed to sufficiently account for the substantial heterogeneity observed across studies. Begg’s test did not reveal significant publication bias (p = 0.063). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the robustness of the findings, as sequential exclusion of individual studies did not substantially alter the pooled effect.

Conclusions. DNS training significantly alleviates pain symptoms in patients with NLBP and shows promising potential for clinical application. Nevertheless, the included studies were limited by small sample sizes, heterogeneous intervention protocols, and varying methodological quality. Future research should focus on large-scale, high-quality RCTs and promote the standardization of DNS intervention protocols to further validate and expand its clinical application in NLBP rehabilitation.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].