Physiotherapy Management of Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Narrative Review of Contemporary Evidence

1. Introduction

Nonspecific low back pain (NSLBP) is defined as pain localized between the lower rib margin and the gluteal folds, with or without referred symptoms, that cannot be attributed to a specific identifiable pathology such as fracture, infection, malignancy, inflammatory disease, cauda equina syndrome, or clear radicular compression.^1–4 Therefore, it is considered a diagnosis of exclusion, established after clinical assessment has ruled out serious spinal pathology. Contemporary guidelines emphasize diagnostic triage, identification of red flags and psychosocial prognostic factors, and avoidance of routine imaging in the absence of clinical suspicion of serious disease.^1–4

Low back pain (LBP) remains among the most common musculoskeletal disorders globally and a leading cause of years lived with disability, with approximately 90%–95% of cases classified as nonspecific.^{1, 2, 4, 5} Population-based estimates indicate a substantial point prevalence and major societal burden, including activity limitation, work absenteeism, recurrent healthcare utilization, and high direct and indirect costs.^{1, 3, 4} The burden of LBP is exacerbated by its recurrent nature, as many individuals experience repeated LBP episodes even after apparent recovery, contributing to psychological distress, reduced quality of life, and impaired social and occupational participation.^{2, 3, 5}

Current evidence increasingly supports a multidimensional understanding of NSLBP, in which biomechanical, neurophysiological, behavioral, and psychosocial factors contribute to the development and persistence of pain and disability.^{2, 3} Consequently, modern management of NSLBP has shifted from a purely passive biomedical model toward evidence-based, patient-centered, biopsychosocial care, within which physiotherapy is central.^2–4 International clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) consistently recommend non-pharmacological strategies such as patient education, reassurance, advice to remain active, structured exercise therapy, and psychosocially informed interventions, particularly for chronic cases.^1–4

Exercise-based rehabilitation remains the most consistently supported intervention, with recent trials confirming the benefits of core stabilization and combined core–breathing training in chronic NSLBP^{6, 7} and multimodal approaches integrating manual therapy with pain neuroscience education, which show additional value.⁸ Conversely, systematic reviews have reported limited benefit for ultrasound in treating chronic NSLBP, clinically unimportant effects for mechanical diagnosis and therapy (MDT, also called the McKenzie method) in acute or subacute NSLBP, and small, often clinically irrelevant effects for yoga, reinforcing the need for careful evidence-based selection.^9–11

Given the high prevalence of NSLBP, its complex biopsychosocial nature, and the wide range of physiotherapy interventions currently employed, this narrative review aims to provide an updated overview of the physiotherapy management of NSLBP, focusing on evidence-based interventions, current guideline recommendations, and their relevance to clinical practice.^1–4

2. Pathophysiology and Clinical Presentation

NSLBP is best understood as a heterogeneous clinical condition characterized by LBP that cannot be attributed to a specific identifiable pathology such as fracture, infection, malignancy, inflammatory disease, cauda equina syndrome, or definite nerve root compression.^{1, 3, 12, 13} For most patients, a single pathoanatomical cause of LBP cannot be confirmed; therefore, NSLBP is better interpreted as an interaction between tissue loading, movement behavior, nervous system processing, and psychosocial context rather than as a purely structural entity.^{3, 12, 13}

Biomechanical factors remain relevant because the lumbar spine depends on coordinated load sharing among the intervertebral discs, facet joints, ligaments, and surrounding musculature. Experimental research has demonstrated that these structures respond differently depending on the direction of loading and movement, which helps explain why sustained postures, repeated bending, lifting, or rotational demands may cause symptoms in susceptible individuals.^{14, 15} However, structural loading alone does not adequately explain the variability in pain severity and disability observed in patients with NSLBP.^{12, 13}

At the movement level, patients with chronic LBP often exhibit altered motor strategies rather than a uniform loss of lumbar motion. Compared with pain-free individuals, they may walk more slowly, adopt shorter stride length, show greater paraspinal muscle activity, and exhibit more protective trunk-pelvis coordination.¹⁶ Changes in paraspinal muscle structure and function, including multifidus atrophy, fatty infiltration, altered endurance, and inefficient activation patterns, may further reduce movement efficiency and contribute to recurrent symptoms, although these findings vary across all patients.²⁰

Neurophysiological mechanisms are also important, particularly in chronic NSLBP. Some patients exhibit altered pain modulation, central sensitization-related features, and nociplastic pain mechanisms, which may help explain why pain intensity and disability sometimes appear disproportionate to peripheral tissue findings.^{12, 13, 19} Current evidence suggests that LBP may involve variable nociceptive, neuropathic, and nociplastic contributions, with overlap varying across patients and stages of the condition.¹⁹

Psychological and social factors substantially influence both symptom presentation and prognosis. Fear-avoidance beliefs, pain catastrophizing, low self-efficacy, sleep disturbance, emotional distress, occupational dissatisfaction, and adverse social circumstances can exacerbate pain, reduce activity, and increase the risk of chronicity.^{3, 12, 13, 17–19} Thus, the biopsychosocial model should be considered central to the interpretation of NSLBP rather than an optional adjunct to mechanical assessment.^{3, 12, 13}

Clinically, NSLBP usually presents as pain or stiffness between the lower rib margin and the gluteal folds, sometimes with referred pain into the buttock or thigh, and is commonly aggravated by bending, lifting, prolonged sitting, prolonged standing, or transitional movements.^{1, 3, 12, 13} Therefore, its assessment should include pain behavior, functional limitation, movement observation, neurological screening when indicated, and evaluation of psychosocial prognostic factors, while also excluding signs suggestive of a specific pathology.^{1, 3} Routine imaging is not recommended in the absence of physical signs because imaging abnormalities are common in asymptomatic individuals and correlate poorly with symptoms.^{1, 3}

3. Literature Review Methodology

This article was developed as a structured narrative review to summarize clinically relevant evidence on the physiotherapy management of adults with NSLBP. The literature search was conducted in May 2026 and covered publications from January 2017 to May 2026, with earlier landmark articles retained when necessary for background, terminology, or historical context.

PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were searched using combinations of terms related to nonspecific low back pain, physiotherapy, physical therapy, rehabilitation, exercise therapy, manual therapy, patient education, biopsychosocial care, and clinical practice guidelines. The reference lists of key articles were also screened.

Eligible sources included clinical practice guidelines, randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and selected narrative reviews directly relevant to conservative physiotherapy management of adult NSLBP. Articles were excluded when they focused primarily on pediatric populations, specific spinal pathology, surgical management, pharmacological-only management, non-clinical topics, or conditions not directly relevant to NSLBP rehabilitation.

The final synthesis included 39 publications. Findings were synthesized thematically using a clinically oriented narrative approach rather than formal meta-analysis. Because this was a narrative review, no duplicate screening, formal risk-of-bias assessment, independent GRADE certainty rating, or quantitative pooling was undertaken. The recommendation descriptors used in the tables summarize the recommendation wording and support status reported in the cited CPGs; they should not be interpreted as an independent quality appraisal or evidence-grading exercise. This limitation is acknowledged explicitly below. The review was prepared in accordance with the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA) framework to improve methodological transparency and clarity of reporting.²¹

4. Evidence-based physiotherapy interventions

4.1. Education and Self-management Interventions

Education is a foundational component of physiotherapy management of NSLBP and is consistently recommended across contemporary CPGs.^{1–4, 22} Its purpose extends well beyond simple reassurance. High-quality education addresses the generally favorable natural history of most acute LBP episodes, encourages patients to remain active, discourages unnecessary rest, promotes early return to normal activities and work when appropriate, and supports self-management of LBP through pacing, activity modification, flare-up planning, and back-protection strategies.^{1–4, 22} Core evidence-based physiotherapy recommendations and their clinical interpretation are summarized in Table 1.

Modern education for NSLBP is increasingly biopsychosocial. Rather than reinforcing a purely structural explanation of pain, it helps patients understand that pain intensity, disability, and recovery are shaped by physical, psychological, and social factors.^1–4 This perception is particularly important because unhelpful beliefs, catastrophizing, and fear-avoidance behaviors are associated with worse long-term outcomes.^{3, 4, 8} Pain neuroscience education has become especially relevant in chronic NSLBP. A recent randomized trial demonstrated that adding pain neuroscience education and motivational interviewing to manual therapy improved pain, disability, catastrophizing, kinesiophobia, pressure pain threshold, and function more than manual therapy alone.⁸

Self-management education is most effective when linked to an active rehabilitation plan. In the WalkBack randomized controlled trial, an individualized progressive walking and education program reduced recurrence of activity-limiting LBP and was cost-effective, supporting education as a tool for sustained behavioral change rather than a passive adjunct.⁵ Therefore, education and self-management should be viewed as active therapeutic interventions that improve adherence, reduce fear, and prepare patients to engage in exercise-centered rehabilitation.^{1–5, 8}

4.2. Classification-based and stratified physiotherapy approaches

A major development in physiotherapy management of LBP has been the shift from uniform treatment toward classification-based care. The rationale is that the causes of NSLBP are heterogeneous and that subgrouping may improve treatment matching. This broad family of approaches includes treatment-based classification, prognostic risk stratification, MDT/McKenzie method, movement system impairment models, and cognitive functional therapy (CFT).^3,4,22,23

Among these approaches, prognostic risk stratification has the clearest support in recent CPGs because it helps identify patients who may need psychologically informed or multidisciplinary care.^{3, 4, 22} In contrast, evidence for the MDT/McKenzie method is mixed. Although it remains clinically influential, a recent Cochrane review found no clinically important benefit for pain or disability in acute or subacute NSLBP cases compared with other approaches. Therefore, it cannot be considered a superior routine strategy.^10,22

Movement system impairment and other impairment-based models may help guide individualized clinical reasoning. However, recent reviews of CPGs do not endorse any single impairment-based framework as a preferred stand-alone method.^{3, 4, 18, 24} CFT is the most promising recent classification-based approach because it integrates movement, beliefs, behavior, and lifestyle. Indeed, recent evidence suggests it has beneficial effects on disability, pain, and pain self-efficacy in patients with chronic LBP.^{25, 26}

Overall, classification-based care is useful when it improves personalization. However, the strongest evidence still supports active rehabilitation, risk-informed management, and biopsychosocial integration rather than the superiority of a single approach.^{1–4, 10, 18, 22–26}

4.3. Exercise Therapy

Exercise therapy remains the cornerstone of physiotherapy management of NSLBP, particularly in chronic and recurrent cases. Although contemporary CPGs and systematic reviews consistently support exercise as a first-line intervention, they do not identify a single universally superior method.^{1–4, 27} The most defensible position is that exercise therapy should be individualized based on symptom behavior, functional limitation, irritability, psychosocial barriers, comorbidity, and patient preference rather than prescribed as a one-size-fits-all approach.^{1–4, 27}

The evidence broadly supports general exercise, progressive strengthening, endurance training, and multimodal exercise programs. A key Cochrane review concluded that exercise therapy was more effective than no treatment, usual care, or placebo for chronic LBP, with meaningful benefits for pain and function, although average effects are modest.²⁷ This finding reinforces the clinical importance of structured and progressive exercise itself, even when the exact exercise format varies between patients and studies.^{1–4, 27}

Motor control exercises, targeted trunk muscle activation, and core-focused programs remain widely employed because they aim to improve lumbopelvic coordination, trunk muscle endurance, and movement efficiency. Trials have shown that core stabilization can reduce pain more than routine exercise in patients with chronic NSLBP, and that combining core training with breathing exercises may further improve pain, disability, and trunk muscle performance.^{6, 7} However, these findings should not be interpreted as confirmation that core-focused exercise is universally superior, because broader reviews indicate that several exercise approaches produce comparable overall outcomes when delivered progressively and consistently.^{1–4, 27}

Aerobic and walking-based exercises deserve particular attention because they are practical, scalable, and inexpensive. In the WalkBack randomized controlled trial, an individualized progressive walking and education program prolonged time to recurrence and was cost-effective, supporting walking not only as a symptom-management strategy but also as a recurrence-prevention intervention.⁵ A separate randomized controlled study reported that treadmill walking programs improved pain, functional limitation, and fear-avoidance behavior, further supporting graded walking as a useful rehabilitation strategy.²⁸

Current evidence indicates that other exercise formats may be appropriate for certain patients, but it should be interpreted cautiously. Although yoga may provide small improvements compared with no exercise, the effects are often not clinically relevant and not clearly superior to other exercise-based care.¹¹ Similarly, the MDT/McKenzie method has not demonstrated clinically important benefits for subacute and acute NSLBP compared with other conservative approaches.¹⁰ These findings support exercises being selected based on patients’ preference, tolerance, access, and clinical reasoning rather than on assumptions that one method is broadly superior.^{10, 11, 27}

In clinical practice, exercise therapy should be progressive, goal-directed, and linked to self-management. Programs should be matched to patients’ current capacity, advanced based on their responses, and framed in a way that reduces their fear of movement and supports their return to meaningful activities.^1–4 For some patients, this may mean beginning with walking, graded exposure, or low-load trunk control work; for others, it may involve resistance exercise, endurance training, or a broader multimodal program. The key therapeutic principles are not complexity but adherence, progression, and sustained engagement in active rehabilitation.^{1–4, 27}

Overall, current evidence supports a flexible yet evidence-based rehabilitation model: exercise should be prescribed routinely for NSLBP, delivered in a personalized manner, and integrated with education and behavioral support when needed.^{1–4, 27} A structured summary of exercise-related CPG recommendations and guideline support/recommendation status is provided in Table 2.

4.4. Manual Therapy

Manual therapy remains an important but adjunctive component of physiotherapy management of NSLBP. Reviews of CPGs generally support spinal manipulation, mobilization, and selected soft-tissue techniques when delivered as part of a package that includes exercise and, sometimes, education or psychological strategies.^{2–4, 22} They conclude that manual therapy is best understood as a facilitator of active rehabilitation rather than a stand-alone solution.^{2–4, 22}

Spinal manipulation involves thrust techniques, whereas mobilization involves non-thrust passive movement. Recent global comparisons note that many CPGs recommend one or both, although the distinction is not always clearly described.⁴ Despite these distinctions, the current clinical message is that manual therapy may help but should not replace active care.^{2–4, 22} Soft tissue mobilization and massage may be considered as adjuncts to an active rehabilitation program; massage alone is generally insufficient in chronic NSLBP but may temporarily reduce pain or muscle guarding and improve exercise tolerance.^{3, 4, 28}

Myofascial release is another soft tissue approach of interest. A 2021 systematic review and meta-analysis of osteopathic interventions reported moderate-quality evidence for pain reduction.²⁹ Moreover, a 2025 randomized controlled trial reported that myofascial release outperformed dry cupping and conventional treatment in pain, lumbar motion, and disability.³⁰ Neural mobilization or nerve-gliding techniques are commonly used in patients with back-related leg symptoms. They may be useful when neural mechanosensitivity contributes to symptoms, although they are less consistently highlighted in key reviews of CPGs.^{2, 8}

Overall, the most evidence-based use of manual therapy is not as a substitute for exercise, but as a short-term means to reduce pain, improve movement tolerance, and support progression into active rehabilitation.^{2–4, 8, 22, 29, 30}

4.5. Needling-related physiotherapy interventions

Needling-related interventions are used in some physiotherapy settings, most commonly as adjunctive dry needling rather than a stand-alone treatment.^{3, 4, 22} Dry needling differs conceptually from traditional acupuncture. However, in practice, the evidence base for needling interventions in LBP overlaps substantially and is sometimes evaluated together in guideline literature.3, 4,2 2

Recent evidence suggests that dry needling may have short-term analgesic value, particularly when incorporated into a broader treatment program. A 2023 systematic review of LBP concluded that dry needling is effective for myofascial pain.³¹ In addition, a 2023 meta-analysis found that dry needling can reduce pain intensity in chronic LBP, especially when combined with other therapies.³² Moreover, a 2023 umbrella review reported that dry needling is generally superior to sham or no intervention for short-term pain reduction across musculoskeletal conditions, although effects on disability are less consistent.³³

However, clinical interpretation of the evidence should remain cautious. Recent reviews of CPGs do not consistently recommend dry needling as a primary treatment for NSLBP. Notably, some CPGs report no clear recommendation because the evidence remains limited, heterogeneous, or more supportive for short-term pain than for disability or long-term outcomes.^{3, 4, 22} Thus, dry needling may be considered for certain patients, especially those with prominent myofascial pain features. However, dry needling is best positioned as an adjunct to exercise-centered and biopsychosocially informed care rather than as a primary intervention.^{3, 4, 22, 31–33}

4.6. Combined Rehabilitation Programs, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy–informed Rehabilitation, and Multidisciplinary Care

Combined rehabilitation programs are particularly important in patients with chronic or disabling NSLBP because pain and disability are rarely maintained by physical impairments alone. Current evidence supports combining physical rehabilitation with psychological and behavioral strategies when psychosocial barriers are prominent.^{1–4, 8, 22}

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)–informed rehabilitation is one of the clearest examples. Reviews of CPGs have consistently reported that CBT approaches may be used as part of multimodal treatment, particularly when fear-avoidance, catastrophizing, distress, or disability are prominent.^{2–4, 22} A 2024 randomized controlled trial found that CBT produced greater reductions in pain, disability, and fear-avoidance beliefs than core stabilization training, although both interventions improved patient outcomes.³⁴ This finding does not diminish exercise therapy; rather, it supports the principle that some patients benefit from both physical and cognitive-behavioral treatment components.³⁴

More broadly, multidisciplinary rehabilitation is strongly supported for certain patients with chronic NSLBP, particularly when prior treatments have failed or when substantial psychosocial and occupational barriers exist.^{2–4, 22} Recent prospective evidence from a physiotherapy-led tertiary multidisciplinary service also showed that lower education level and greater disability were associated with worse outcomes, highlighting the importance of personalized support, health literacy, and close monitoring within rehabilitation pathways.²³

Therefore, combined physical and psychological rehabilitation should not be considered a niche strategy; for chronic NSLBP, it represents one of the most evidence-consistent ways to address the interaction of pain, behavior, function, and return to normal activities.^{1–4, 8, 22, 23, 34}

4.7. Physical Modalities, Electrotherapy, Taping, and Supports

Several additional modalities are used in some physiotherapy settings. However, the evidence base is weaker, and current key reviews of CPGs generally do not favor their routine use. For instance, while superficial heat may provide short-term symptom relief in certain patients, it is not a core rehabilitation strategy. Current evidence for cold therapy, low-level laser therapy, and kinesio taping is limited or inconsistent in key reviews of CPGs.^{3, 4} Table 3 summarizes manual therapy and adjunctive modality recommendations, including interventions that are not routinely supported.

Current evidence only weakly supports the use of mechanical traction for NSLBP, and current reviews of CPGs generally advise against its routine use.^{3, 4, 9, 22} Similarly, therapeutic ultrasound is not routinely recommended because its effect on pain is uncertain, and its effect on function is small and likely not clinically meaningful.⁹ Moreover, electrical modalities such as transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), percutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (PENS), and interferential therapy are not routinely recommended.^{2–4, 22} Furthermore, lumbar supports, belts, corsets, and foot orthotics also have limited and uncertain roles in the routine management of NSLBP.^{3, 4, 22}

Overall, modalities such as mechanical traction, ultrasound, TENS, PENS, interferential therapy, braces, orthotics, and probably taping should not replace active rehabilitation based on education, exercise, and self-management.^{2–4, 9, 22}

5. CPGs and International Recommendations

5.1. Summary of CPG Recommendations

For this narrative review, the most relevant CPGs were the 2020 CPG of the North American Spine Society (NASS) and the 2021 CPG of the Academy of Orthopedic Physical Therapy of the American Physical Therapy Association (AOPT-APTA), as both address conservative and rehabilitation management of LBP.^{35, 36} The core recommendations of both CPGs are compared in Tables 1–3, with emphasis on guideline support/recommendation status and practical clinical recommendations rather than independent evidence grading.

The AOPT-APTA CPG provides the most detailed physiotherapy guidance. It emphasizes active education, advice to remain active, pain neuroscience education for chronic LBP, and exercise as the central intervention.³⁵ It also supports trunk strengthening and endurance exercise, multimodal and aerobic exercise, specific trunk muscle activation, aquatic exercise, and general exercise for chronic LBP, with movement control and trunk mobility exercise for certain patients. Moreover, it supports the use of exercise therapy for patients with acute LBP, those with leg pain, older adults, and postoperative cases.³⁵ Furthermore, it supports thrust or non-thrust mobilization, selected soft tissue techniques, and limited adjunctive use of dry needling or neural mobilization in appropriate cases, while advising against mechanical traction for chronic LBP with leg pain.³⁵

In contrast, the NASS CPG is broader and more conservative. It supports aerobic exercise, spinal manipulative therapy as an option, and co-treatment with CBT and physiotherapy, while noting possible short-term benefit from heat in acute LBP. It also reports insufficient or conflicting evidence for several passive modalities and recommends against traction in subacute and chronic LBP.³⁶

5.2. Comparison of the AOPT-APTA and NASS CPGs

The main difference between the two CPGs is specificity. The AOPT-APTA CPG is rehabilitation-focused and offers more direct guidance on exercise, manual therapy, education, and subgroup considerations relevant to daily physiotherapy practice.³⁵ In contrast, the NASS CPG covers diagnosis, imaging, medications, rehabilitation, interventional care, and surgery; therefore, its rehabilitation recommendations are more selective and often more cautious.³⁶ In practical terms, the AOPT-APTA CPG is the more useful guide for treatment planning, whereas the NASS CPG provides a broader benchmark for judging which interventions are supported, uncertain, or not routinely recommended.

5.3. Implementation in Clinical Practice

Altogether, the CPGs support a clear model for physiotherapy management of NSLBP: begin with education and advice to remain active, base treatment on individualized exercise, use manual therapy selectively to facilitate movement, integrate psychologically informed care when needed, and avoid allowing passive modalities to replace active rehabilitation.^{35, 36} Overall, current CPGs support a physiotherapy management model for NSLBP that is education-based, exercise-focused, patient-centered, and biopsychosocially-informed, with manual therapy used as an adjunct and passive modalities used cautiously or not routinely.^{35, 36}

6. Challenges, Controversies, and Future Directions

Despite substantial research, major challenges remain. Firstly, the causes of NSLBP are heterogeneous, which partly explains why many interventions show only modest average effects and why treatment matching remains challenging.^{12, 13, 19} Secondly, a gap remains between CPG recommendations and real-world clinical practice. Low-value care, including unnecessary imaging and passive treatment, remains common despite strong support for education, exercise, and biopsychosocial rehabilitation.^{1, 35–37} Thirdly, controversies remain regarding classification-based care and adjunctive treatments. CFT appears promising, but evidence is mixed for several other named systems and for interventions such as dry needling, spinal manipulation, yoga, and digital rehabilitation when used as stand-alone solutions.^{10, 25, 33, 35, 38, 39}

Therefore, future research should focus on phenotyping, prognostic stratification, identification of optimal combinations of education and exercise, and pragmatic implementation studies that improve the delivery of personalized, scalable, biopsychosocial care. Although emerging digital and artificial intelligence–assisted tools may improve access and adherence, they currently appear more useful as delivery supports than as clearly superior treatments.^{1, 12, 13, 17, 35, 37–39}

This review has limitations related to its narrative design. Although the search period, eligibility criteria, the review did not include duplicate screening, a PRISMA flow diagram, formal quality appraisal of individual studies, risk-of-bias assessment, or independent GRADE certainty assessment. The recommendation descriptors in the tables are descriptive summaries of CPG recommendation status and should not be interpreted as formal quality ratings. Therefore, the conclusions should be interpreted as a clinically oriented synthesis of contemporary evidence rather than as a systematic review or meta-analysis.

7. Conclusions

NSLBP is a common, disabling, and clinically heterogeneous condition that should be managed through an active biopsychosocial rehabilitation model rather than a purely structural or passive-care approach. The most consistently supported physiotherapy strategies are patient education, advice to remain active, progressive exercise, self-management support, and selective manual therapy as an adjunct to facilitate movement and participation.^{1–4, 27}

Clinically, physiotherapists should individualize exercise type and dose according to symptoms, functional limitations, patient preference, psychosocial risk, and tolerance, while avoiding routine reliance on low-value passive modalities such as traction, ultrasound, and electrotherapy. Psychologically informed and multidisciplinary rehabilitation should be considered for chronic, recurrent, or highly disabling NSLBP. Overall, contemporary evidence supports patient-centered, exercise-focused, and function-oriented physiotherapy for NSLBP.^{1–4, 9, 27, 34}

References

1. Oliveira CB, Maher CG, Pinto RZ, Traeger AC, Lin CWC, Chenot JF, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of nonspecific low back pain in primary care: an updated overview. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(11):2791-803.

2. Zaina F, Côté P, Cancelliere C, Di Felice F, Donzelli S, Rauch A, et al. A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for persons with nonspecific low back pain with and without radiculopathy: identification of best evidence for rehabilitation to develop the WHO’s Package of Interventions for Rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2023;104(10):1913-27.

3. Nicol V, Verdaguer C, Daste C, Bisseriex H, Lapeyre É, Lefèvre-Colau MM, et al. Chronic low back pain: a narrative review of recent international guidelines for diagnosis and conservative treatment. J Clin Med. 2023;12(4):1685.

4. Zhou T, Salman D, McGregor AH. Recent clinical practice guidelines for the management of low back pain: a global comparison. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2024;25:344.

5. Pocovi NC, Lin CWC, French SD, Graham PL, van Dongen JM, Latimer J, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an individualised, progressive walking and education intervention for the prevention of low back pain recurrence in Australia (WalkBack): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2024;404(10451):134-44.

6. Akhtar MW, Karimi H, Gilani SA. Effectiveness of core stabilization exercises and routine exercise therapy in management of pain in chronic nonspecific low back pain: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Pak J Med Sci. 2017;33(4):1002-6.

7. Li Y, Zhao Q, Zhang X, E Y, Su Y. The impact of core training combined with breathing exercises on individuals with chronic nonspecific low back pain. Front Public Health. 2025;13:1518612.

8. Kasimis K, Apostolou T, Kallistratos I, Lytras D, Iakovidis P. Effects of manual therapy plus pain neuroscience education with integrated motivational interviewing in individuals with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a randomized clinical trial study. Medicina (Kaunas). 2024;60(4):556.

9. Ebadi S, Henschke N, Forogh B, Nakhostin Ansari N, van Tulder MW, Babaei-Ghazani A, et al. Therapeutic ultrasound for chronic low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;7:CD009169.

10. Almeida MO, Narciso Garcia A, Menezes Costa LC, van Tulder MW, Lin CWC, Machado LAC. The McKenzie method for (sub)acute nonspecific low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023;4:CD009711.

11. Wieland LS, Skoetz N, Pilkington K, Harbin S, Vempati R, Berman BM. Yoga for chronic nonspecific low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;11:CD010671.

12. Hartvigsen J, Hancock MJ, Kongsted A, Louw Q, Ferreira ML, Genevay S, et al. What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention. Lancet. 2018;391(10137):2356-67.

13. Maher C, Underwood M, Buchbinder R. Nonspecific low back pain. Lancet. 2017;389(10070):736-47.

14. Widmer J, Cornaz F, Scheibler G, Spirig JM, Snedeker JG, Farshad M. Biomechanical contribution of spinal structures to stability of the lumbar spine—novel biomechanical insights. Spine J. 2020;20(10):1705-16.

15. Inoue N, Espinoza Orías AA, Segami K. Biomechanics of the lumbar facet joint. Spine Surg Relat Res. 2020;4(1):1-7.

16. Armour Smith J, Stabbert H, Bagwell JJ, Teng HL, Wade V, Lee SP. Do people with low back pain walk differently? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sport Health Sci. 2022;11(4):450-65.

17. Quirk DA, Johnson ME, Anderson DE, Smuck M, Sun R, Matthew R, et al. Biomechanical phenotyping of chronic low back pain: protocol for BACPAC. Pain Med. 2023;24(Suppl 1):S48-60.

18. Cholewicki J, Breen A, Popovich JM Jr, Reeves NP, Sahrmann SA, Van Dillen LR, et al. Can biomechanics research lead to more effective treatment of low back pain? A point-counterpoint debate. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2019;49(6):425-36.

19. Nijs J, Kosek E, Chiarotto A, Cook C, Danneels LA, Fernandez-de-Las-Peñas C, et al. Nociceptive, neuropathic, or nociplastic low back pain? The low back pain phenotyping consortium’s international and multidisciplinary consensus recommendations. Lancet Rheumatol. 2024;6(3):e178-88.

20. Hodges PW, Danneels L. Changes in structure and function of the back muscles in low back pain: different time points, observations, and mechanisms. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2019;49(6):464-76.

21. Baethge C, Goldbeck-Wood S, Mertens S. SANRA—a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019;4:5.

22. Stochkendahl MJ, Kjaer P, Hartvigsen J, Kongsted A, Aaboe J, Andersen M, et al. National clinical guidelines for non-surgical treatment of patients with recent onset low back pain or lumbar radiculopathy. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(1):60-75.

23. O’Leary S, Raymer M, Window P, Kelly PS, Lee D, Garsden L, et al. A multisite longitudinal evaluation of patient characteristics associated with a poor response to non-surgical multidisciplinary management of low back pain in an advanced practice physiotherapist-led tertiary service. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21:807.

24. Harris-Hayes M, Van Dillen LR. The inter-tester reliability of physical therapists classifying low back pain problems based on the Movement System Impairment classification system. PM R. 2009;1(2):117-26.

25. Thiveos L, Kent P, Pocovi NC, O’Sullivan P, Hancock MJ. Cognitive functional therapy for chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Phys Ther. 2024;104(12):pzae128.

26. de Lira MR, Meziat-Filho N, Zuccolotto EB, Oliveira CB, Souza CS, Nogueira LAC, et al. Efficacy of cognitive functional therapy for pain intensity and disability in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: a randomised sham-controlled trial. Br J Sports Med. 2025;59(6):389-98.

27. Hayden JA, Ellis J, Ogilvie R, Malmivaara A, van Tulder MW. Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;9:CD009790.

28. Olowe O, Sokunbi O, Salisu A, Okafor A. The effect of treadmill walk with abdominal bracing versus usual care on functional limitation and fear-avoidance behaviours in the management of nonspecific low back pain—a randomized control study. Bull Fac Phys Ther. 2022;27:35.

29. Dal Farra F, Risio RG, Vismara L, Bergna A. Effectiveness of osteopathic interventions in chronic nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Complement Ther Med. 2021;56:102616.

30. Mohamed RA, Abdallah GA, Hafez HA, Helmy AM, Nassif AA, Fergany LA, et al. Effectiveness of myofascial release technique versus dry cupping therapy in management of patients with nonspecific low back pain. SPORT TK. 2025;14:166.

31. Dach F, Ferreira KS. Treating myofascial pain with dry needling: a systematic review for the best evidence-based practices in low back pain. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2023;81(12):1169-78.

32. Lara-Palomo IC, Gil-Martínez E, López-Fernández MD, González González LM, Querol-Zaldívar MLA, Castro-Sánchez AM. Efficacy of dry needling for chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Altern Ther Health Med. 2023;29(8):110-20.

33. Chys M, De Meulemeester K, De Greef I, Murillo C, Kindt W, Kouzouz Y, et al. Clinical effectiveness of dry needling in patients with musculoskeletal pain—an umbrella review. J Clin Med. 2023;12(3):1205.

34. Abdelhaleem MD, Aly SM, Taha TS, Abdallah EA. Effect of 8 weeks of cognitive behavioral therapy versus 8 weeks core stabilization training in the management of subjects with nonspecific low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Bull Fac Phys Ther. 2024;29:37.

35. George SZ, Fritz JM, Silfies SP, Schneider MJ, Beneciuk JM, Lentz TA, et al. Interventions for the management of acute and chronic low back pain: revision 2021. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2021;51(11):CPG1-60.

36. North American Spine Society. Evidence-based clinical guidelines for multidisciplinary spine care: diagnosis and treatment of low back pain. Burr Ridge (IL): North American Spine Society; 2020.

37. Tormohlen KN, Luo CL, Ahsan A, Coleman BC, Dow PM, Becker WC, et al. Management of low back pain among Medicaid beneficiaries: modalities, patterns, and perspectives across states. Health Aff Sch. 2025;3(9):qxaf180.

38. Shi W, Chen L, Zhang Y, Yuan W, Li Q, Chen Z, et al. The physical and psychological effectiveness of mHealth-based physiotherapy for patients with chronic nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Telemed Telecare. 2026;32(4):295-315.

39. Kapil D, Wang J, Olawade DB, Vanderbloemen L. AI-assisted physiotherapy for patients with nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Appl Sci. 2025;15(3):1532.