Abstract
Background:
Low back pain (LBP) is characterized by pain or discomfort between the costal margins and the inferior gluteal folds, with or without radiation to the lower limbs. It significantly affects patients’ overall health and quality of life.
Purpose:
This study aims to investigate the effects of exercise therapy and adherence to the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) guidelines on treatment outcomes in patients with LBP.
Methods:
The literature search, concluded on 26 June 2025, included studies that investigated the effects of exercise interventions in patients diagnosed with LBP and that provided sufficient data for calculating the Standardized Mean Difference (SMD). The primary outcome measure was the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and secondary outcomes included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RDQ/RMDQ).
Results:
Among 22,723 records, 36 studies (n = 2,284) were eligible for qualitative synthesis. The meta-analysis showed an overall SMD for pain of −1.28 (95% CI -1.63, −0.94). In the subgroup with high adherence to the ACSM guidelines, the pooled SMD was −1.98 (95% CI -2.58, −1.38), whereas in the low- or uncertain-adherence subgroup it was −0.72 (95% CI -1.01, −0.43). For disability, the overall SMD was −1.10 (95% CI -1.58, −0.62) on the ODI. High adherence yielded a mean difference of −1.31 (95% CI -1.81, −0.80) and low adherence yielded −0.99 (95% CI -1.71, −0.28). The overall SMD was −0.77 (95% CI -1.07, −0.47) on the RDQ; the corresponding values were −1.39 (95% CI -2.51, −0.26) for high adherence and −0.54 (95% CI -0.76, −0.31) for low adherence.
Conclusion:
The results suggest that exercise interventions with high adherence to the ACSM recommendations are more effective in improving pain and disability in individuals with LBP than interventions with low or uncertain adherence to these guidelines.
1 Introduction
LBP is characterized by pain or discomfort between the costal margins and the inferior gluteal folds, with or without radiating pain in the lower limbs. It is strongly associated with disability, work absenteeism, and mood disorders such as depression and anxiety (; ). In the United Kingdom, approximately £12 billion is spent annually on direct medical and non-medical costs, as well as indirect costs related to productivity loss and absenteeism (). A recent inception cohort study demonstrated that 40% of patients with acute LBP seen in primary care settings progress to chronic LBP, highlights both the high prevalence of the condition and its substantial impact on patients’ quality of life and socioeconomic status, underscoring the urgent need for more effective treatment strategies (). Current treatment approaches include pharmacological therapies - such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (e.g., ibuprofen, celecoxib) for pain and inflammation, muscle relaxants (e.g., eperisone) for spasms, and neurotropic agents (e.g., mecobalamin) for nerve root compression - and non-pharmacological interventions like exercise, smoking cessation, and reduced alcohol consumption (; ; ). However, pharmacological treatments often carry side effects that may indirectly reduce quality of life. Exercise, as a key non-pharmacological intervention, not only alleviates LBP symptoms but also enhances overall well-being and quality of life ().
Research has shown that following an exercise intervention, individuals with LBP experience significant improvements in quality of life, pain scores, and balance performance (). Exercise therapy is recommended by clinical practice guidelines as an effective intervention for the treatment of non-specific LBP. Pain and function are critical diagnostic indicators in individuals with LBP, and exercise plays a key role in reducing pain and improving function for both prevention and treatment (). The most recent Cochrane systematic review on exercise for chronic low back pain (CLBP) concluded that all forms of exercise therapy are equally effective and at least as efficacious as other conservative treatments (). Exercise includes a wide range of modalities, such as aerobic, resistance, strength, balance, and proprioceptive training. Consequently, the studies exhibited significant heterogeneity due to the wide variety of exercise protocols used. Moreover, considerable variation in the number of control groups incorporated into the studies due to the limited availability of specific control therapies, potentially compromising the overall quality of evidence. In contrast, the ACSM provides comprehensive, systematic, and standardized exercise guidelines with predefined minimum dose thresholds for aerobic, resistance, and flexibility exercises. These guidelines specify evidence-based recommendations for exercise frequency, intensity, time, and type (FITT principles), including minimum intensity thresholds: moderate-intensity aerobic exercise (40%–60% heart rate reserve or 64%–76% maximum heart rate), resistance training involving 1 sets of 8–12 repetitions at 60%–70% one-repetition maximum, and flexibility exercises held for 10–30 s per stretch. Specifically for chronic disease populations including those with musculoskeletal conditions, the ACSM guidelines emphasize individualized progression while maintaining these minimum dosage thresholds to ensure physiological adaptation and therapeutic benefit. A recent randomized controlled trial found that high-intensity aerobic training was more effective than moderate-intensity training in reducing pain and improving function in individuals with LBP (). Although exercise is an effective non-pharmacological treatment for LBP, the optimal exercise dosage for both prevention and treatment remains unclear, and further experimental evidence is needed to establish definitive recommendations.
The effectiveness of exercise for LBP is thought to depend not only on dosage parameters but also on proper exercise form and core activation. Proper form ensures that targeted muscle groups are effectively engaged while minimizing compensatory movements that may exacerbate pain or injury risk. Core activation, involving the coordinated contraction of deep stabilizing muscles including the transversus abdominis, multifidus, and pelvic floor muscles, is considered fundamental to spinal stability and load distribution during movement. Emerging evidence suggests that exercises emphasizing core activation may provide superior outcomes for LBP by enhancing neuromuscular control and reducing abnormal spinal loading. However, the extent to which the exercise programs reviewed in existing literature explicitly addressed form supervision and core activation remains unclear, as these details are often inadequately reported in primary studies. This represents an important gap in the current evidence base, as the therapeutic potential of exercise may be substantially influenced by the quality of movement execution rather than dosage alone.
Despite the established benefits of exercise for LBP, significant gaps remain in understanding how adherence to standardized exercise guidelines influences treatment outcomes. Previous systematic reviews have primarily focused on comparing different exercise modalities without adequately addressing the critical issue of guideline adherence (). The heterogeneity in exercise prescriptions across studies - characterized by variations in frequency, intensity, time, and type (FITT principles) - has limited the ability to draw definitive conclusions regarding optimal exercise parameters for LBP management. Furthermore, while the ACSM guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for exercise prescription in healthy populations and various clinical conditions, their specific application to LBP populations requires further investigation. Recent evidence suggests that structured exercise programs adhering to established guidelines may yield superior outcomes compared to unstructured or poorly defined interventions; however, this hypothesis has not been systematically evaluated in the LBP literature (). Therefore, this study aims to comprehensively evaluate how adherence to ACSM exercise guidelines influences treatment outcomes in individuals with LBP. By systematically examining the relationship between guideline-concordant exercise prescription and clinical outcomes, we seek to establish a foundation for more precise and personalized exercise prescription in clinical practice. Ultimately, this approach may enhance the translational value of exercise interventions and optimize patient-centered care for individuals suffering from low back pain.
2 Materials and methods
The systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251139872).
2.1 Search strategy
We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases from inception to 26 June 2025, using a search strategy based on the PICOS framework, focusing on the study population, intervention, and research methodology. Both Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and free-text terms for “Exercise,” “Low back pain,” and “Randomized controlled trial” were combined with appropriate Boolean operators.
The detailed search strategy is presented in Supplementary Material 1. We also manually screened the reference lists of relevant reviews and included studies. When required, we contacted study authors for additional information.
2.2 Criteria for selection of studies
We included studies that met the following criteria: (a) published randomized controlled trials (RCTs); (b) study participants were individuals with LBP; (c) the intervention could be any land-based exercise program, including resistance training, aerobic exercise, flexibility exercise, etc.,; (d) the control intervention could be no treatment or any treatment unrelated to exercise; thus, studies comparing different exercise interventions were excluded; (e) reporting of the VAS, ODI, or RDQ in the study results.
We excluded the following studies: (a) reports, conference proceedings, magazines, reviews, etc.,; (b) studies based on aquatic exercise and those without a comparison between a land-based exercise intervention and a non-exercise group; (c) populations with confirmed radiculopathy due to herniated discs, acute spinal fractures, tumors, pregnancy, or signs of progressive neurological deficits; (d) studies that involved special drug treatments during the exercise intervention; (e) duplicate experimental data from multiple publications of the same study.
Two authors (TT and BZ) will independently screened the titles and abstracts of the literature that met the inclusion criteria. If one of the authors considered a study to meet the criteria, the full text of the article will be obtained. Then, two authors independently assessed whether the full text met the requirements. In case of disagreement, the third author (HW) made a final decision, and consensus was reached through discussion. There were no restrictions on participant age, gender, body mass index, publication date, or language.
2.3 Data synthesis and analysis
Data were extracted independently by two reviewers (TT and BZ) using a pre-designed Excel spreadsheet. The primary outcome was lumbar pain intensity measured with the VAS; secondary outcomes were functional disability assessed using the ODI and RDQ. Extracted variables comprised study identifiers (title, authors, country, year), design elements (number of groups, group descriptions, intervention details, sample size), participant characteristics (age, sex distribution, body mass index [BMI]), exercise parameters (frequency, intensity, duration, repetitions, sets), risk-of-bias items, and outcome data.
When extracting outcome data, if the study did not clearly report post-intervention results but presented them in graphical form, Engauge Digitizer software was used to extract the data. For studies with multiple follow-up evaluations, we extracted only the data immediately after the intervention.
After data were extracted, we evaluated the dose and adherence of each exercise intervention. The dose was assessed against the ACSM recommendations for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neural function in individuals with LBP (). Two authors (TT and BZ) independently assessed each study’s exercise intervention against ACSM criteria for frequency, intensity, duration, and other relevant aspects to evaluate adherence to exercise dose (Table 1).
TABLE 1
| Exercise dose | Cardiorespiratory exercise | Resistance exercise | Flexibility exercise |
|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency | ≥3–5 days/week | 1–2 days/week (non-consecutive days), gradually increasing to 2–3 days/week | 5–7days/week |
| Intensity/workload | 40%–60% VO2R or HRR; 64%–76% HRmax; RPE of 12–13 on a 6–20 scale | Adjust resistance, medium to high intensity (Start with 40%–50% 1RM, more capable with 60%–70% 1RM) | Stretch until you feel your muscles being pulled tight or a slight discomfort |
| Duration | Gradually increase from 20 min to at least 30 min (up to 45–60 min) | Starting with one set of 8–12 repetitions, increase to two sets after about 2 weeks. Perform no more than 8–10 exercises per session | Static stretching held for 10–30 s, repeated 2–4 times |
The American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) recommendations for cardiorespiratory fitness, muscular strength and flexibility in apparently healthy adults.
HRR, Heart rate reserve. VO2R, Oxygen uptake reserve. 1RM, one repetition maximum.
The scoring range for each exercise indicator was 0–2 points. 2 points were assigned for fully meeting the criteria, 1 point for partial or ambiguous adherence, and 0 points for not meeting the criteria. In cases of disagreement during the evaluation process, the researchers consulted a third author to reach consensus. Using this scoring method, the proportion of exercise dose adherence conforming to ACSM guidelines was calculated for each study as follows: the sum of actual scores for all exercise indicators was divided by the maximum possible score (number of exercise indicators *2) and multiplied by 100%. A proportion rate of ≥75% was considered strong adherence to ACSM recommendations, while <75% indicated low or questionable adherence (; ; ).
2.4 Statistical analyses
Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4.1 and Stata 12.0. For non-normally distributed data reported as medians (M) with interquartile ranges (P25, P75), we converted these to mean ± standard deviation (SD) using the method described by McGrath (). The SMD served as the effect measure, and heterogeneity was quantified with the Higgins I2 statistic. Because exercise modality, frequency, intervention length, and single-session duration varied across trials, we a priori specified a random-effects model. When I2 indicated considerable heterogeneity, meta-regression was undertaken to identify potential sources. Publication bias was appraised with funnel plots, Begg’s rank-correlation test, and Egger’s linear regression (p < 0.05 considered significant). In the presence of publication bias, we used the trim-and-fill method to assess its impact on the meta-analysis results. This method involves iteratively estimating the number of missing or unpublished studies and recalculating the effect size to determine whether the overall findings remain robust. Sensitivity analyses were also performed to examine the robustness of the study results by excluding each study one by one.
2.5 Quality appraisal
The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed by two pairs of reviewers (TT and BZ, JCX and HW) using the quality assessment criteria recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration (). The recommended tool is the original Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB 1) tool (). The RoB 1 tool provides a framework for assessing the risk of bias for individual outcomes in any type of randomized trial. The evaluation indicators include random sequence generation (addressing selection bias), allocation concealment (addressing performance bias), blinding of participants and personnel (addressing performance bias), blinding of outcome assessment (addressing detection bias), incomplete outcome data (addressing attrition bias), selective reporting (addressing reporting bias), and other biases. Reviewers rate the studies based on the Cochrane Handbook. The bias risk for each area is categorized into three levels: “low risk,” “some concerns,” and “high risk.” If all areas are evaluated as “low risk,” the overall bias risk is considered “low.” If some areas are evaluated as “some concerns” and no areas are rated as “high risk,” the overall bias risk is considered “some concerns.” If any area is rated as “high risk,” the overall bias risk is considered “high.” ().
3 Results
3.1 Study selection
A total of 22,723 records were retrieved from four databases: PubMed (2,317), Cochrane Library (5,419), Embase (2,387), and Web of Science (12,596), with an additional four records manually identified from other sources. After removing 11,262 duplicates, 11,461 articles remained.
Following title and abstract screening, 251 articles were selected for full-text review, and ultimately, 36 articles were included in this review (Figure 1). These studies are as follows: (; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ) (Table 2).
FIGURE 1
TABLE 2
| Author, year | Country | Age (years) | Sample size (n) | BMI (Kg/m2) | Interventions | Length of intervention | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IG | CG | IG (F:M) | CG (F:M) | IG | CG | ||||
| Nigeria | 48.15 (9.02) | 53.1 (7.91) | 20 (14:6) | 20 (15:5) | 29.51 (15.99) | 26.57 (5) | Stabilization exercise | 8 weeks | |
| Australia | 43.4 (13.5) | 44.3 (13) | 80 (63:17) | 80 (56:24) | NR | NR | Tai Chi exercise | 10 weeks | |
| Spain | 37.9 (8.2) | 35.6 (6.7) | 32 (21:11) | 30 (20:10) | 22.38 (2.71) | 20.77 (2.57) | Pilates | 12 weeks | |
| Brazil | 35 (9.8) | 33 (11.3) | 27 (19:8) | 27 (17:10) | 25.17 (3.6) | 25.42 (3.62) | Isostretching | 45 days | |
| Brazil | 40.7 (11.8) | 38.3 (11.4) | 43 (36:7) | 43 (34:9) | 25.5 (4.9) | 24.6 (4.0) | Modified pilates | 6 weeks | |
| Portugal | 38.8 (12) | 45.1 (13.6) | 25 (12:13) | 24 (15:9) | NR | NR | Aerobic exercise | NR | |
| Korea | 38.1 (7.9) | 36.5 (7.7) | 15 (9:6) | 15 (10:5) | NR | NR | CORE exercise | 4 weeks | |
| Brazil | 47.79 (11.47) | 48.08 (12.98) | 30 (24:6) | 30 (23:7) | 23.1 (4.9) | 24.3 (4.5) | Pilates | 90 days | |
| China | 58.13 (5.38) | 60.67 (2.58) | 15 (11:4) | 13 (10:3) | NR | NR | Chen-Style Tai Chi | 12 weeks | |
| Spain | 35.6 (7.9) | 35.6 (9.7) | 11 (11:0) | 8 (8:0) | 23.8 (2.3) | 24.3 (2.4) | Resistance training | 12 weeks | |
| USA | 48.7 (10.6) | 48 (1.96) | 20 (13:7) | 24 (17:7) | NR | NR | Lyengar yoga | 16 weeks | |
| USA | 48.4 (1.86) | 47.6 (1.47) | 43 (32:11) | 47 (37:10) | 25.8 (0.57) | 27.4 (0.60) | Lyengar yoga | 24 weeks | |
| China | 64.60 (3.71) | 64.12 (2.96) | 15 (15:0) | 16 (16:0) | 23.34 (1.37) | 22.72 (1.20) | Core stability training | 4 weeks | |
| Korea, China | 42.63 (9.60) | 41.45 (10.23) | 42 (19:23) | 42 (18:24) | NR | NR | Suspension training | 1 month | |
| Iran | 36.92 (5.39) | 37.13 (3.61) | 15 (11:4) | 15 (9:6) | 26.12 (3.04) | 25.53 (2.32) | Gluteal-to-tensor fasciae latae activation | 8 weeks | |
| Spain | 26.39 (11.57) | 28.17 (8.63) | 27 (5:22) | 27 (2:25) | 26.39 (11.57) | 28.17 (8.63) | Pilates | 8 weeks | |
| Iran | 26.27 (2.13) | 26.43 (2.57) | 15 (15:0) | 15 (15:0) | 23.15 (3.15) | 23.32 (4.25) | Static stretching exercises | 8 weeks | |
| Iran | 43.3 (7.5) | 41.3 (6.4) | 10 (10:0) | 10 (10:0) | 24 (1.7) | 24.3 (2.1) | Core stability exercises | 8 weeks | |
| Iran | 32.23 (6.32) | 32.13 (6.96) | 17 (12:5) | 15 (9:6) | 24.72 (4.59) | 26.47 (4.38) | Core stabilization exercises | 4 weeks | |
| China | 41.7 (5.6) | 43.6 (6.4) | 41 (10:31) | 41 (13:28) | NR | NR | Core stability exercises | 6 weeks | |
| UK | 45.5 (14.1) | 45.5 (14.1) | 20(NR) | 21(NR) | NR | NR | Lumbar extension training | 12 weeks | |
| Portugal | 21.8 (3.2) | 22.8 (3.6) | 23 (13:10) | 23 (14:9) | 22.1 (2.4) | 22.2 (3.2) | Pilates | NR | |
| India | 42.5 (12.6) | 42.5 (12.7) | 45(NR) | 40(NR) | 30.44 (4.97) | 30.65 (2.9) | Medical yoga therapy | 8 weeks | |
| UK | 36.9 (8.1) | 45.9 (8.0) | 20 (17:3) | 14 (10:4) | NR | NR | Pilates | 6 weeks | |
| China | 48.71 (3.89) | 51.62 (4.03) | 43(NR) | 42(NR) | NR | NR | Core stability exercises | 8 weeks | |
| Ireland | 43 (9) | 46 (11) | 20 (14:6) | 21 (13:8) | NR | NR | Stabilisation exercise training | 10 weeks | |
| Taiwan | 45.5 (10.74) | 41.95 (11.85) | 24 (22:2) | 22 (21:1) | 23.55 (2.92) | 24.42 (4.68) | Core stability exercise | 8 weeks | |
| Croatia | 33.6 (4.30) | 34.7 (4.83) | 15 (6:9) | 15 (8:7) | NR | NR | Yoga | 8 weeks | |
| Spain | 36.67 (25.93) | 26 (8.15) | 9 (8:1) | 9 (6:3) | NR | NR | Abdominal hypopressive gymnastics | 5 weeks | |
| Spain | 34 (20.74) | 43 (23.7) | 20 (14:6) | 20 (15:5) | 23.8 (2.4) | 25.7 (4) | Abdominal hypopressive gymnastics | 5 weeks | |
| California | 53.3 (12.7) | 53.6 (13.9) | 75 (20:55) | 75 (19:56) | NR | NR | Yoga | 12 weeks | |
| UK | 46.4 (11.3) | 46.3 (11.5) | 156 (106:50) | 157 (114:43) | NR | NR | Yoga | 12 weeks | |
| Croatia | 58.3 (15.4) | 58.3 (15.5) | 30(NR) | 30(NR) | 22.6 (3.06) | 22.6 (3.07) | Lumbosacral kinesiotherapy | 10 days | |
| Germany | 29.6 | 26.1 | 119 (96:23) | 30 (24:6) | NR | NR | Flexion and extension exercises | 1 Week | |
| UK | 46 (12.36) | 41.7 (15.1) | 10(NR) | 7(NR) | 25.2 (3.15) | 25.94 (4.41) | Motion lumbar extension exercise | 12 weeks | |
| Netherlands | 44 (10) | 41 (9) | 23 (23:0) | 21 (21:0) | NR | NR | Extension exercises | 8 weeks | |
Basic characteristics of the included studies.
IG, intervention group; CG, control group; Numbers are mean (SD) unless otherwise stated; NR, not reported; F, female; M, male.
3.2 Study characteristics
The 36 articles each reported one comparative study, collectively enrolling 2,284 participants (1,195 in the intervention and 1,089 in the control groups). Geographically, the trials were conducted in: China and Spain (five each), Iran and the United Kingdom (four each), Brazil (three), the United States (three, including one in California), Portugal, Croatia and South Korea (two each), and Taiwan, Nigeria, Ireland, India, Australia, Germany and the Netherlands (one each). The article by Ye et al. covered sites in both China and South Korea (). Intervention duration ranged from 10 days to 12 weeks, and session frequency ranged from 2 to 7 days per week. All programmes were either supervised or home-based, and comprised resistance exercise, balance training, yoga, Tai Chi, stabilization exercises, Pilates or aerobic exercise. Regarding exercise dosage based on ACSM recommendations, 35 studies addressed aerobic exercise, 2 studies focused on resistance exercise, and 33 studies involved flexibility exercises. Full details are given in Table 2.
3.3 Risk of bias
Among the 36 studies included, 28 demonstrated a low risk of bias in random sequence generation. Six studies were rated as having an unclear risk due to insufficient description of the randomization process, while two were classified as high risk because of non-random allocation. Regarding allocation concealment, 15 studies were deemed low risk, 14 had an unclear risk due to inadequate reporting, and 7 were considered high risk.
Blinding presented significant challenges: the inherent difficulty in implementing double-blinding for exercise interventions resulted in elevated risks for both researchers and participants. Twenty-five studies employed blinded outcome assessors, indicating a low risk; five lacked clarity in assessment methods, raising concerns; and six studies with non-blinded assessors were categorized as high-risk.
Incomplete outcome data affected six studies, with three posing a moderate risk (minor participant withdrawals) and three exhibiting a high risk (substantial inter-group attrition). Selective reporting bias was low in 34 studies. One study had an unclear risk (unregistered protocol or inadequate withdrawal documentation), and one was considered high-risk (absence of predefined analysis plans). Additionally, 20 studies exhibited “other bias” sources: 16 with unclear risk and 4 with high risk (Figures 2, 3).
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 3
3.4 Compliance with the ACSM recommendations
We employed a standardized scoring system to evaluate compliance with the ACSM guidelines. Intervention groups were classified as high-compliance (≥75% adherence) or low-compliance based on exercise prescription. Among the 36 trials, 15 demonstrated high compliance (; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ). The remaining 21 studies did not meet this threshold (; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ) (see Table 3). Low compliance was attributable to two main deficiencies: either key components of the ACSM prescription were omitted, or the published exercise details were insufficient for full assessment. When stratified by outcome, 26 trials used the VAS (12 high, 14 low compliance), 17 used the ODI or similar disability scales (7 high, 10 low), and 14 used the RDQ (4 high, 10 low); numbers exceed 36 because several studies reported multiple outcomes.
TABLE 3
 |
Assessment of ACSM compliance.
3.5 Meta-analysis
When the outcome was assessed with the VAS, 26 trials enrolling 1,657 participants were included. Twelve trials achieved high adherence to ACSM recommendations, whereas 14 exhibited low or indeterminate adherence. The overall pooled SMD for pain reduction was −1.28 (95% CI: −1.63, −0.94), confirming a statistically significant benefit of exercise. Subgroup analyses revealed a larger effect in the high-adherence stratum (SMD −1.98; 95% CI: −2.58, −1.38) than in the low/indeterminate-adherence stratum (SMD −0.72; 95% CI: −1.01, −0.43); the between-group difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05) (Figure 4). Visual inspection of the funnel plot indicated symmetry (Figure 5). Nevertheless, both Begg’s (P = 0.029) and Egger’s (P = 0.014) tests suggested publication bias. Trim-and-fill analysis imputed two putative missing studies and produced a symmetric plot (Figure 6). Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that no single study materially altered the pooled estimate (Figure 7), corroborating the robustness of the findings.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 7
When disability was measured with the ODI, 17 trials enrolling 735 participants were included. Seven trials achieved high adherence to ACSM recommendations; ten exhibited low or indeterminate adherence. The pooled SMD was −1.10 (95% CI: −1.58, −0.62), indicating a statistically significant improvement. In the high-adherence stratum the SMD was −1.31 (95% CI: −1.81, −0.80), whereas in the low/indeterminate-adherence stratum it was −0.99 (95% CI: −1.71, −0.28). The between-group difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05) (Figure 8). The funnel plot appeared symmetric (Figure 9), and neither Begg’s (P = 0.249) nor Egger’s (P = 0.304) test suggested publication bias. Sensitivity analysis confirmed that no single study materially influenced the pooled estimate (Figure 10).
FIGURE 8
FIGURE 9
FIGURE 10
When disability was assessed with the RDQ, 14 trials enrolling 1,283 participants were included. Four trials achieved high adherence to ACSM recommendations; ten exhibited low or indeterminate adherence. The pooled SMD was −0.77 (95% CI: −1.07, −0.47), indicating a statistically significant improvement in disability. In the high-adherence stratum the SMD was −1.39 (95% CI: −2.51, −0.26), whereas in the low/indeterminate-adherence stratum it was −0.54 (95% CI: −0.76, −0.31). The between-group difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05) (Figure 11). The funnel plot appeared approximately symmetric (Figure 12); however, both Begg’s (P = 0.006) and Egger’s (P = 0.001) tests suggested publication bias. Trim-and-fill imputation added one hypothetical study (Figure 13) and produced a symmetric plot. Sensitivity analysis confirmed that no single study materially influenced the pooled estimate (Figure 14).
FIGURE 11
FIGURE 12
FIGURE 13
FIGURE 14
4 Discussion
This systematic review and meta-analysis examined whether high adherence to ACSM exercise guidelines improves pain and disability in patients with non-specific LBP compared to low or uncertain adherence to these guidelines. Thirty-six trials (2,284 participants) were included.
4.1 Positive effects of exercise interventions on LBP
The meta-analysis revealed that exercise interventions with high adherence to ACSM guidelines significantly improve pain and functional disability in individuals with non-specific LBP. This finding aligns with common clinical understanding and previous research (; ), confirming the efficacy of structured, guideline-concordant exercise as a non-pharmacological treatment for LBP. A total of 36 RCTs meeting the inclusion criteria were included, encompassing 2,284 patients with nonspecific LBP. The sample population spanned multiple countries, including China, Spain, Iran, the United Kingdom, Brazil, the United States, Portugal, Croatia, and South Korea, indicating the potential generalizability of the findings across diverse geographic and healthcare settings. Although most studies did not systematically report participants' racial or ethnic composition - potentially introducing some population heterogeneity - the overall sample demonstrated broad representativeness.
Consistent evidence indicates that regular, structured exercise interventions yield clinically significant benefits in reducing pain intensity, improving physical function, and enhancing overall quality of life in patients with LBP (). The ACSM guidelines provide a standardized framework for exercise prescription encompassing frequency, intensity, time, and type (FITT principles), ensuring that interventions are systematically designed and reproducible. The results demonstrated that adherence to these ACSM guidelines - rather than simply the act of exercising itself - significantly influenced treatment outcomes. Studies with high guideline adherence (defined as ≥75% conformity to ACSM recommendations for exercise dosage) exhibited greater improvements across multiple core outcome measures compared to those with low or uncertain guideline adherence.
In pain assessment, VAS measurements revealed an SMD of −1.98 (95% CI: −2.58, −1.38) in the high-compliance group, indicating a clinically substantial reduction in pain, compared with an SMD of −0.72 (95% CI: −1.01, −0.43) in the low/uncertain-compliance group, which reflects a more modest improvement. This finding is consistent with the conclusions of Geneen et al., who reported a dose-response relationship between structured physical activity and therapeutic efficacy (). Importantly, our findings suggest that the specific structure and dosage of exercise, as defined by ACSM guidelines, are critical determinants of treatment effectiveness rather than exercise participation alone.
In functional disability assessment, changes in the ODI further underscore the importance of guideline adherence. The high-adherence group demonstrated an SMD of −1.31 (95% CI: −1.81, −0.80) for ODI improvement, significantly outperforming the low-adherence group, which showed an SMD of −0.99 (95% CI: −1.71, −0.28). Similarly, changes in RDQ scores exhibited a comparable trend, with an SMD of −1.39 (95% CI: −2.51, −0.26) in the high-adherence group versus −0.54 (95% CI: −0.76, −0.31) in the low-adherence group, indicating superior recovery in activities of daily living among individuals with higher adherence. These results align with the meta-analysis by Searle et al., which emphasized exercise structure and continuity as key moderators of functional improvement ().
Taken together, exercise therapy demonstrates clear efficacy in the management of LBP, with adherence to ACSM guidelines acting as a critical characteristic that distinguishes more effective from less effective interventions. This underscores the importance of prescribing exercise according to standardized, evidence-based guidelines in clinical practice to achieve optimal intervention effects.
4.2 Physiological rationale for ACSM guideline-based exercise in patients with LBP
The superior outcomes observed with high adherence to ACSM guidelines can be understood through multiple physiological and biomechanical mechanisms. Evidence suggests that regular physical activity prescribed at appropriate dosages enhances core muscle strength, improves lumbar joint mobility, and promotes local blood circulation, collectively contributing to pain reduction and improved functional capacity (). For instance, aerobic exercises such as brisk walking not only improve cardiorespiratory fitness but also provide better dynamic stabilization of the lumbar spine through enhanced systemic endurance (). Engaging in moderate-intensity aerobic exercise three times per week for 30 min per session has been shown to significantly reduce pain intensity in patients with chronic LBP ().
Resistance training, particularly targeting the transversus abdominis, multifidus, and gluteal muscle groups, effectively strengthens lumbar segmental stability, offloading stress from the intervertebral discs and facet joints, thereby alleviating pain (). A randomized controlled trial demonstrated that patients undergoing an 8-week resistance training program exhibited a mean improvement of 35% in the ODI ().
Furthermore, balance training enhances proprioception and postural control by activating deep stabilizing musculature, which helps reduce compensatory lumbar injuries caused by postural instability (). Exercises such as single-leg stance and yoga-based movements have been widely incorporated into LBP rehabilitation programs and have demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes (). Collectively, various forms of exercise exert synergistic effects through distinct physiological mechanisms, not only reducing pain but also improving overall function and quality of life.
4.3 Impact of adherence to ACSM guidelines on exercise interventions
The superior outcomes observed in the high-adherence group relative to those with low or uncertain adherence may be attributed to the systematic and standardized nature of the ACSM guidelines. The ACSM-recommended exercise regimens encompass multiple modalities, including aerobic training, flexibility exercises, and resistance training, and provide evidence-based recommendations on frequency, intensity, time, and type of exercise (FITT principles) (). High adherence implies that studies more rigorously implemented these evidence-based dosage parameters, leading to more pronounced improvements in both physiological and functional outcomes.
Studies indicate that moderate-intensity aerobic exercise in accordance with ACSM recommendations - such as 150 min per week of brisk walking - can significantly improve cardiorespiratory fitness and reduce levels of chronic inflammatory markers, thereby alleviating symptoms of LBP (). Additionally, resistance training enhances the strength and stability of the core musculature, which helps reduce mechanical loading on the lumbar spine ().
Flexibility training performed with proper duration (10–30 s per stretch) contributes by improving muscle extensibility and joint range of motion, thereby reducing the incidence of muscle spasms. Taken together, high adherence to ACSM guidelines enables the full realization of benefits from multimodal, structured exercise interventions, leading to superior outcomes in pain relief and functional recovery. Therefore, based on current evidence, high conformity with ACSM guidelines exerts a positive effect on the management of LBP, although findings should be interpreted with caution.
4.4 Clinical value of ACSM-Based exercise
Exercise programs based on recommendations from the ACSM hold significant clinical value in the management of LBP. As a safe and effective non-pharmacological intervention, the ACSM guidelines emphasize standardized, individualized, progressive regimens incorporating aerobic exercise, resistance training, and flexibility exercises at specific, evidence-based dosages. These components collectively improve core muscle function and enhance spinal stability, effectively reducing pain and preventing recurrence. Substantial clinical evidence confirms that prescribing exercise according to these structured protocols yields meaningful improvements in patient-reported outcomes and physical function.
Regular implementation of ACSM guideline-concordant exercise prescriptions can significantly reduce pain intensity in patients with LBP, improve physical function and psychological wellbeing, and enhance overall quality of life. Compared with long-term reliance on analgesics, muscle relaxants, or surgical interventions, standardized exercise-based approaches avoid potential adverse effects such as drug dependence, hepatic and renal burden, and surgical risks, offering a safer and more sustainable therapeutic option. Moreover, by enhancing physical function and self-management capacity, ACSM guideline-based exercise therapy helps reduce absenteeism, work disability, and long-term functional limitations associated with LBP, thus alleviating the economic burden on both individuals and society.
Against the backdrop of strained healthcare resources and increasing pressure in chronic disease management, widespread adoption of standardized ACSM exercise protocols not only optimizes treatment pathways for LBP but also significantly reduces healthcare expenditures related to outpatient visits, imaging examinations, and hospitalizations, demonstrating broad societal benefits and long-term public health implications.
4.5 Future directions and research limitations
In clinical practice, greater emphasis should be placed on the dissemination and application of standardized guidelines from the ACSM, integrating them into standard management protocols for LBP. Healthcare providers, including physicians and rehabilitation therapists, should develop evidence-based, individualized exercise intervention programs tailored to patients’ specific characteristics - such as age, physical condition, pain severity, degree of functional limitation, and comorbidities - by applying the ACSM-recommended Frequency, Intensity, Time, and Type (FITT) principles. This ensures safe, effective improvements in function and pain reduction.
Furthermore, enhanced multidisciplinary collaboration integrating physical therapy, psychological support, and patient education is essential to maximize rehabilitation outcomes. Future research should further investigate the optimal combination and implementation strategies of ACSM-recommended aerobic exercise, resistance training, and flexibility exercises across different LBP subtypes, including nonspecific LBP, discogenic pain, and spinal degenerative conditions. Critically, future meta-analyses should examine both exercise type (resistance, aerobic, flexibility) and exercise dose to determine potential interactions and optimize clinical utility (; ). In addition, attention should be directed toward the application of digital health technologies, such as wearable devices and mobile applications, for remote monitoring of physical activity and the provision of real-time feedback, thereby enhancing patients' self-management capabilities.
Improving prescription of guideline-adherent exercise is crucial to the success of exercise therapy. Future research should further explore the barriers and facilitators to implementing ACSM guidelines in clinical settings and develop targeted behavioral intervention strategies - such as motivational interviewing, goal setting, and social support systems - to promote widespread adoption of standardized exercise protocols. Through the optimization of clinical practice and the advancement of evidence-based research, the standardized and precise implementation of ACSM guidelines in LBP rehabilitation can be promoted, ultimately leading to comprehensive improvements in patients’ quality of life.
Although the findings and contributions of this study are valuable, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the inclusion criteria across the selected studies were not entirely consistent, with variations in the frequency, intensity, and duration of exercise interventions, which may affect the accuracy and comparability of the results. Second, potential confounding factors exist; for instance, some studies did not adequately control for other variables that might influence pain and functional outcomes, such as patients' psychological status and lifestyle behaviors. Third, although 36 articles were included in this analysis, the number remains relatively limited compared to the vast body of literature on LBP, potentially limiting the generalizability of the findings. Fourth, considerable inter-individual variability exists, as patients may respond differently to exercise interventions, which could also affect the overall applicability of the results.
Fifth, and particularly important, the ACSM-based scoring was performed by authors involved in the study (TT and BZ), which may introduce potential bias despite our efforts to ensure objectivity. Although we employed dual independent assessment with consensus resolution involving a third author (HW) when disagreements occurred, the subjective nature of evaluating guideline adherence cannot be entirely eliminated. Different reviewers might apply scoring criteria with varying degrees of stringency, and the published exercise descriptions in primary studies were often incomplete or ambiguous, requiring interpretive judgment. This subjectivity in scoring may have influenced the classification of studies into high versus low adherence categories, potentially affecting our subgroup comparisons. Future reviews could mitigate this limitation by employing blinded assessment by independent reviewers not involved in other aspects of the review, or by developing more objective, automated methods for evaluating guideline adherence based on standardized reporting templates.
Sixth, we were unable to analyze the effects of specific exercise modes (resistance vs. aerobic vs. flexibility) or components (core strengthening vs. gluteal strengthening vs. stretching) due to inadequate reporting in primary studies. Many studies employed multimodal interventions without clearly delineating the relative contribution of each component, and exercise descriptions were frequently too vague to permit reliable categorization. This limitation prevents us from determining whether certain exercise types are more effective than others when delivered at equivalent ACSM-adherent dosages, or whether specific components interact with dosage to influence outcomes. Future primary studies should employ standardized reporting of exercise parameters according to the FITT framework to enable such analyses.
5 Conclusion
Our meta-analysis indicates that exercise prescribed according to ACSM guidelines can decrease pain and function in patients with LBP. Furthermore, strict adherence to the ACSM recommendations (≥75% adherence) was associated with significant decreases in VAS, ODI, and RDQ scores compared to low or uncertain adherence, providing theoretical support for exploring optimal exercise dosage in patients with LBP. These findings demonstrate that the specific structure and dosage of exercise interventions matter - not all exercise is equally effective. However, as some studies did not provide detailed exercise intervention protocols, this conclusion requires further validation through longer-term follow-up and higher-quality RCTs.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.
Author contributions
TT: Writing – review and editing, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Visualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis. XT: Data curation, Writing – review and editing. JyX: Writing – review and editing, Validation. BZ: Writing – review and editing, Validation. JnX: Writing – review and editing, Formal Analysis, Data curation. HW: Funding acquisition, Supervision, Investigation, Writing – review and editing, Software, Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Resources. FW: Writing – original draft, Investigation, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Software, Writing – review and editing, Conceptualization, Resources.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This study is part of the Chongqing Rongchang District 2024 District Science and Technology Bureau Project.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2026.1725132/full#supplementary-material
References
1
AbassA. O.AlliA.OlagbegiO. M.ChristieC. J.BolarindeS. O. (2020). Effects of an eight-week lumbar stabilization exercise programme on selected variables of patients with chronic low back pain. Bangladesh J. Med. Sci.19, 467–474. 10.3329/bjms.v19i3.45864
2
AryaS.YadavR. K.VenkataramanS.DeepakK. K.BhatiaR. (2022). Objective evidence for chronic back pain relief by medical yoga therapy. Front. Pain Res. (Lausanne)3, 1060685. 10.3389/fpain.2022.1060685
3
Bellido-FernándezL.Jiménez-RejanoJ. J.Chillón-MartínezR.Gómez-BenítezM. A.De-La-Casa-AlmeidaM.Rebollo-SalasM. (2018). Effectiveness of massage therapy and abdominal hypopressive gymnastics in nonspecific chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled pilot study. Evid.-based Complement. Altern. Med.2018, 3684194. 10.1155/2018/3684194
4
Bellido-FernándezL.Jiménez-RejanoJ.Chillón-MartínezR.Lorenzo-MuñozA.Pinero-PintoE.Rebollo-SalasM. (2021). Clinical relevance of massage therapy and abdominal hypopressive gymnastics on chronic nonspecific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Disabil. Rehabil.44 (16), 4233–4240. 10.1080/09638288.2021.1884903
5
Bruce-LowS.SmithD.BurnetS.FisherJ.BissellG.WebsterL. (2012). One lumbar extension training session per week is sufficient for strength gains and reductions in pain in patients with chronic low back pain ergonomics. Ergonomics55 (4), 500–507. 10.1080/00140139.2011.644329
6
ChoH.KimE.KimJ. (2014). Effects of the CORE exercise program on pain and active range of motion in patients with chronic low back pain. J. Phys. Ther. Sci.26 (8), 1237–1240. 10.1589/jpts.26.1237
7
Cortell-TormoJ. M.SánchezP. T.Chulvi-MedranoI.Tortosa-MartínezJ.Manchado-LópezC.Llana-BellochS.et al (2017). Effects of functional resistance training on fitness and quality of life in females with chronic nonspecific low-back pain. J. Back Musculoskelet. Rehabil.31 (1), 95–105. 10.3233/BMR-169684
8
Cruz-DíazD.RomeuM.Velasco-GonzálezC.Martínez-AmatA.Hita-ContrerasF. (2018). The effectiveness of 12 weeks of pilates intervention on disability, pain and kinesiophobia in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Clin. Rehabil.32 (9), 1249–1257. 10.1177/0269215518768393
9
CuiW.LiD.JiangY.GaoY. (2023). Effects of exercise based on ACSM recommendations on bone mineral density in individuals with osteoporosis: a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. Front. Physiol.14, 1181327. 10.3389/fphys.2023.1181327
10
CumpstonM.LiT.PageM. J.ChandlerJ.WelchV. A.HigginsJ. P.et al (2019). Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.10 (10), ED000142. 10.1002/14651858.ED000142
11
DagenaisS.CaroJ.HaldemanS. (2008). A systematic review of low back pain cost of illness studies in the United States and internationally. Spine J.8 (1), 8–20. 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.10.005
12
Dal FarraF.ArippaF.ArruM.CoccoM.PorcuE.TramontanoM.et al (2022). Effects of exercise on balance in patients with non-specific low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur. J. Phys. Rehabil. Med.58 (3), 423–434. 10.23736/S1973-9087.21.07293-2
13
DettoriJ. R.BullockS. H.SutliveT. G.FranklinR. J.PatienceT. (1995). The effects of spinal flexion and extension exercises and their associated postures in patients with acute low back pain. Spine20 (21), 2303–2312. 10.1097/00007632-199511000-00008
14
El-HaddadC.DamodaranA.Patrick McNeilH.HuW. (2018). The experience of patients admitted to hospital with acute low back pain: a qualitative study. Int. J. Rheum. Dis.21 (4), 796–803. 10.1111/1756-185X.12870
15
EscorpizoR. (2014). Defining the principles of musculoskeletal disability and rehabilitation. Best. Pract. Res. Clin. Rheumatol.28 (3), 367–375. 10.1016/j.berh.2014.09.001
16
GarberC. E.BlissmerB.DeschenesM. R.FranklinB. A.LamonteM. J.LeeI.et al (2011). American college of sports medicine position stand. Quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neuromotor fitness in apparently healthy adults: guidance for prescribing exercise. Med. Sci. Sports. Exerc.43 (7), 1334–1359. 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318213fefb
17
GeL.HuangH.YuQ.LiY.LiX.LiZ.et al (2022). Effects of core stability training on older women with low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Eur. Rev. Aging Phys. Act.19 (1), 10. 10.1186/s11556-022-00289-x
18
GeneenL. J.MooreR. A.ClarkeC.MartinD.ColvinL. A.SmithB. H. (2017). Physical activity and exercise for chronic pain in adults: an overview of cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.4 (4), CD011279. 10.1002/14651858.CD011279.pub3
19
GladwellV.HeadS.HaggerM.BenekeR. (2006). Does a program of pilates improve chronic non-specifi c low back pain?J. Sport Rehabil.15. 10.1123/jsr.15.4.338
20
GolovachevaV. A.TabeevaG. R.GolovachevaA. A. (2023). Non-specific low back pain: principles and algorithms for successful management of patients in real clinical practice. Neurol. Neuropsychiatry, Psychosom. 15 (3), 85–94. 10.14412/2074-2711-2023-3-85-94
21
GordonR.BloxhamS. (2016). A systematic review of the effects of exercise and physical activity on non-specific chronic low back pain. Healthcare4 (2). 10.3390/healthcare4020022
22
GroesslE. J.LiuL.ChangD. G.WetherellJ. L.BormannJ. E.AtkinsonJ. H.et al (2017). Yoga for military veterans with chronic low back pain: a randomized clinical trial. Am. J. Prev. Med.53 (5), 599–608. 10.1016/j.amepre.2017.05.019
23
HallA. M.MaherC. G.LamP.FerreiraM.LatimerJ. (2011). Tai chi exercise for treatment of pain and disability in people with persistent low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Care Res.63 (11), 1576–1583. 10.1002/acr.20594
24
HanT.XiR.WangJ.YanH.LiL. (2024). Adherence to ACSM exercise guidelines and its influence on fibromyalgia treatment outcomes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Front. Physiol.15, 1413038. 10.3389/fphys.2024.1413038
25
HartsC. C.HelmhoutP. H.de BieR. A.StaalJ. B. (2008). A high-intensity lumbar extensor strengthening program is little better than a low-intensity program or a waiting list control group for chronic low back pain: a randomised clinical trial. Aust. J. Physiother.54 (1), 23–31. 10.1016/s0004-9514(08)70062-x
26
HatefiM.BabakhaniF.AshrafizadehM. (2021). The effect of static stretching exercises on hip range of motion, pain, and disability in patients with non-specific low back pain. J. Exp. Orthop.8 (1), 55. 10.1186/s40634-021-00371-w
27
HaydenJ. A.EllisJ.OgilvieR.MalmivaaraA.van TulderM. W. (2021). Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.9 (9), CD009790. 10.1002/14651858.CD009790.pub2
28
HaydenJ. A.van TulderM. W.MalmivaaraA.KoesB. W. (2005). Exercise therapy for treatment of non-specific low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.2005 (3), CD000335. 10.1002/14651858.CD000335.pub2
29
HaydenS. J.EllisJ.OgilvieR.StewartS. A.BaggM. K.StanojevicS.et al (2021). Some types of exercise are more effective than others in people with chronic low back pain: a network meta-analysis. J. Physiother.67 (4), 252–262. 10.1016/j.jphys.2021.09.004
30
HigginsJ. P. T.AltmanD. G.GøtzscheP. C.JüniP.MoherD.OxmanA. D.et al (2011). The cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ343, d5928. 10.1136/bmj.d5928
31
HlaingS. S.PuntumetakulR.KhineE. E.BoucautR. (2021). Effects of core stabilization exercise and strengthening exercise on proprioception, balance, muscle thickness and pain related outcomes in patients with subacute nonspecific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord.22 (1), 998. 10.1186/s12891-021-04858-6
32
JahandidehL.LetafatkarA.KhanzadehR.Omidi KashaniF. (2023). Comparing the effect of exercises with different gluteal-to-tensor fasciae latae activation index in patients with chronic low back pain. J. Sport Rehabil.32 (7), 810–817. 10.1123/jsr.2022-0344
33
JiangJ.PanH.ChenH.SongL.WangY.QianB.et al (2022). Comparative efficacy of pharmacological therapies for low back pain: a bayesian network analysis. Front. Pharmacol.13, 811962. 10.3389/fphar.2022.811962
34
KosićM.MalnarD.LekićA. (2024). A study of 60 patients with low back pain to compare outcomes following magnetotherapy, ultrasound, laser, and electrotherapy with and without Lumbosacral kinesiotherapy. Med. Sci. Monit.30, e943732. 10.12659/MSM.943732
35
KuvačićG.FratiniP.PaduloJ.AntonioD. I.De GiorgioA. (2018). Effectiveness of yoga and educational intervention on disability, anxiety, depression, and pain in people with CLBP: a randomized controlled trial. Complement. Ther. Clin. Pract.31, 262–267. 10.1016/j.ctcp.2018.03.008
36
KuzuŞ.CanliM.Valamurİ.ÖzüdoğruA.AlkanH.HartaviA. (2025). Effects of aerobic exercise in addition to core stabilization exercises on functional capacity, physical performance and fall risk in geriatric individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain. BMC Sports Sci. Med. Rehabil.17 (1), 218. 10.1186/s13102-025-01271-7
37
LinC.LiuY.ChenS.ChengS.LiuM. (2022). The effectiveness of group-based core stability exercise and educational booklet for hospital workers in Taiwan with nonspecific low back pain: a preliminary study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health19 (6), 3324. 10.3390/ijerph19063324
38
LiuJ.YeungA.XiaoT.TianX.KongZ.ZouL.et al (2019). Chen-style tai chi for individuals (aged 50 years old or above) with chronic non-specific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health16 (3). 10.3390/ijerph16030517
39
LopesS.CorreiaC.FélixG.LopesM.CruzA.RibeiroF. (2017). Immediate effects of pilates based therapeutic exercise on postural control of young individuals with non-specific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Complement. Ther. Med.34, 104–110. 10.1016/j.ctim.2017.08.006
40
LuanB.LiZ.YangQ.XuZ.ChenY.WangM.et al (2024). The effects of ACSM-based exercise on breast cancer-related lymphoedema: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front. Physiol.15, 1413764. 10.3389/fphys.2024.1413764
41
MákK.KapusK.TóthG.HesszenbergerD.PohlM.PuschG.et al (2021). Neuropathic low back pain and burnout among hungarian workers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health18 (5), 2693. 10.3390/ijerph18052693
42
McGrathS.SohnH.SteeleR.BenedettiA. (2020). Meta-analysis of the difference of medians. Biom. J.62 (1), 69–98. 10.1002/bimj.201900036
43
MengX.YueS. (2015). Efficacy of aerobic exercise for treatment of chronic low back pain: a meta-analysis. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil.94 (5), 358–365. 10.1097/PHM.0000000000000188
44
MiyamotoG. C.CostaL. O. P.GalvaninT.CabralC. M. N. (2012). Efficacy of the addition of modified pilates exercises to a minimal intervention in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Phys. Ther.93 (3), 310–320. 10.2522/ptj.20120190
45
NaroueiS.BaratiA. H.AkuzawaH.TalebianS.GhiasiF.AkbariA.et al (2020). Effects of core stabilization exercises on thickness and activity of trunk and hip muscles in subjects with nonspecific chronic low back pain. J. Bodyw. Mov. Ther.24 (4), 138–146. 10.1016/j.jbmt.2020.06.026
46
NatourJ.CazottiL. D. A.RibeiroL. H.BaptistaA. S.JonesA. (2014). Pilates improves pain, function and quality of life in patients with chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Clin. Rehabil.29 (1), 59–68. 10.1177/0269215514538981
47
NoormohammadpourP.KordiM.MansourniaM. A.Akbari-FakhrabadiM.KordiR. (2018). The role of a multi-step core stability exercise program in the treatment of nurses with chronic low back pain: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Asian Spine J.12 (3), 490–502. 10.4184/asj.2018.12.3.490
48
PinhoH.NevesM.CostaF.SilvaA. G. (2023). Pain intensity and pain sensitivity are not increased by a single session of high-intensity interval aerobic exercise in individuals with chronic low back pain: a randomized and controlled trial. Musculoskelet. Sci. Pract.66, 102824. 10.1016/j.msksp.2023.102824
49
PradoÉ. R. A.MeirelesS. M.CarvalhoA. C. A.MazocaM. F.Motta NetoA. D. M.Barboza Da SilvaR.et al (2019). Influence of isostretching on patients with chronic low back pain. A randomized controlled trial. Physiother. Theory Pract.37 (2), 287–294. 10.1080/09593985.2019.1625091
50
SearleA.SpinkM.HoA.ChuterV. (2015). Exercise interventions for the treatment of chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Clin. Rehabil.29 (12), 1155–1167. 10.1177/0269215515570379
51
ShaughnessyM.CaulfieldB. (2004). A pilot study to investigate the effect of lumbar stabilisation exercise training on functional ability and quality of life in patients with chronic low back pain. Int. J. Rehabil. Res.27 (4), 297–301. 10.1097/00004356-200412000-00007
52
SteeleJ.Bruce-LowS.SmithD.JessopD.OsborneN. (2013). A randomized controlled trial of limited range of motion lumbar extension exercise in chronic low back pain. Spine38 (15), 1245–1252. 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318291b526
53
SuhJ. H.KimH.JungG. P.KoJ. Y.RyuJ. S. (2019). The effect of lumbar stabilization and walking exercises on chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Med. Baltim.98 (26), e16173. 10.1097/MD.0000000000016173
54
TangS.QianX.ZhangY.LiuY. (2016). Treating low back pain resulted from lumbar degenerative instability using chinese tuina combined with core stability exercises: a randomized controlled trial. Complement. Ther. Med.25, 45–50. 10.1016/j.ctim.2016.01.001
55
TilbrookH. E.CoxH.HewittC. E.Kang'OmbeA. R.ChuangL.JayakodyS.et al (2011). Yoga for chronic low back pain: a randomized trial. Ann. Intern. Med.155 (9), 569–578. 10.7326/0003-4819-155-9-201111010-00003
56
ValenzaM. C.Rodríguez-TorresJ.Cabrera-MartosI.Díaz-PelegrinaA.Aguilar-FerrándizM. E.Castellote-CaballeroY. (2016). Results of a pilates exercise program in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Clin. Rehabil.31 (6), 753–760. 10.1177/0269215516651978
57
VerbruggheJ.HansenD.DemoulinC.VerbuntJ.RousselN. A.TimmermansA. (2021). High intensity training is an effective modality to improve long-term disability and exercise capacity in chronic nonspecific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health18 (20), 10779. 10.3390/ijerph182010779
58
WilliamsB.JohnsonD. (2023). Low back pain ODI changes following 8-week movement proficiency exercise program. J. Med. Res. Innovation7, 1–4. 10.32892/JMRI.290
59
WilliamsK. A.PetronisJ.SmithD.GoodrichD.WuJ.RaviN.et al (2005). Effect of iyengar yoga therapy for chronic low back pain. Pain115 (1-2), 107–117. 10.1016/j.pain.2005.02.016
60
WilliamsK.AbildsoC.SteinbergL.DoyleE.EpsteinB.SmithD.et al (2009). Evaluation of the effectiveness and efficacy of iyengar yoga therapy on chronic low back pain. Spine34 (19), 2066–2076. 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b315cc
61
YeL.LiuC.JiangC.CaoY. (2021). Core training under suspension exercise therapy on treatment of low back pain. Rev. Bras. Med. Esporte27, 695–698. 10.1590/1517-8692202127072021_0336
62
YildirimP.GultekinA. (2022). The effect of a stretch and strength-based yoga exercise program on patients with neuropathic pain due to lumbar disc herniation. Spine47 (10), 711–719. 10.1097/BRS.0000000000004316
63
ZangW.YanJ. (2024). Exercise interventions for nonspecific low back pain: a bibliometric analysis of global research from 2018 to 2023. Front. Med.11, 1390920. 10.3389/fmed.2024.1390920
64
ZangW.FangM.HeH.MuL.ZhengX.ShuH.et al (2022). Comparative efficacy of exercise modalities for cardiopulmonary function in hemodialysis patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Front. Public Health10, 1040704. 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1040704
65
ZangW.FangM.XiaoN.ZhangX.LinC.WangS. (2024). Quantifying the dose-response relationship between exercise and health-related quality of life in patients undergoing haemodialysis: a meta-analysis. Prev. Med. Rep.42, 102737. 10.1016/j.pmedr.2024.102737
66
ZangW.FangM.XiaoN.WuJ.ZhangQ.MaoX. (2026). Exercise prescriptions for older adults with different degrees of cognitive impairment: a dose-response network meta-analysis. Clin. Rehabil.40 (2), 154–170. 10.1177/02692155251385219
67
ZhangY.TangS.ChenG.LiuY. (2015). Chinese massage combined with core stability exercises for nonspecific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Complement. Ther. Med.23 (1), 1–6. 10.1016/j.ctim.2014.12.005
68
ZhaoK.ZhangP.LiH.LiL. (2025). Exercise prescription for improving chronic low back pain in adults: a network meta-analysis. Front. Public Health13, 1512450. 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1512450
Summary
Keywords
ACSM, exercise, meta-analysis, non-specific low back pain, systematic review
Citation
Tan T, Tan X, Xie J, Zeng B, Xie J, Wang H and Wen F (2026) Effects of exercise dose based on the ACSM recommendations on pain and disability in non-specific low back pain patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Front. Physiol. 17:1725132. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2026.1725132
Received
14 October 2025
Revised
26 January 2026
Accepted
30 January 2026
Published
11 March 2026
Volume
17 - 2026
Edited by
Justin Roberts, Anglia Ruskin University, United Kingdom
Updates
Copyright
© 2026 Tan, Tan, Xie, Zeng, Xie, Wang and Wen.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Huan Wang, 693191946@qq.com; Fei Wen, 214707603@qq.com
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.