Study note • PMID 36086735
Efficacy of semi-customized exercises in preventing low back pain in high school volleyball players: A randomized controlled trial.
How to use this page
This note summarizes one study record. Check the participants, methods, results, and limitations before applying it to training.
- • Design signal: randomized trial.
- • Population relevance: mixed/unclear athlete specificity.
- • Consistency: single-study evidence.
- • Practical recommendation depends on tolerance, context, and whether it protects training consistency.
ELI5
In plain language
BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a common injury in high school volleyball players. (randomized trial; participants).
The abstract reports an association involving Injury risk (not necessarily causation). Treat this as a signal, not a guarantee; confirm methods and context in the full paper.
Takeaways
What the abstract suggests
- • Study question: BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is a common injury in high school volleyball players.
- • The abstract reports an association involving Injury risk (not necessarily causation).
- • Population: participants.
- • Protocol cues (title/abstract): 4 weeks.
Protocol
Protocol (as reported)
- • Intervention/exposure: stretch, stretching (vs control group).
- • Dose/time/duration cues in abstract/title: 4 weeks.
- • Outcomes: Injury risk.
- • Replication note: abstracts often omit adherence and timing; confirm details before changing training or supplementation.
Fit
Who it may help, and who should be cautious
Who it helps
- • Athletes similar to the study population (participants) working on mobility.
- • Athletes who can measure Injury risk with a repeatable workout or time-trial effort.
Who should be cautious
- • If you have symptoms or conditions that make the intervention risky, get professional guidance.
- • If you’re near race day and can’t safely test, defer the experiment.
Methods
What the study actually did
- • Design: randomized trial.
- • Population: participants.
- • Comparator: control group.
- • Outcomes measured: Injury risk.
- • Protocol cues mentioned: 4 weeks.
- • Source: PubMed PMID 36086735 (2022) — Medicine.
Results excerpt
What the abstract reports
“The intervention group had a significantly lower incidence of LBP (8.8%) than the control group (33.3%) (relative risk, 3.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-12.23; P = .017, 1 - beta = 0.99).”
Note: excerpts are short; for full context, read the paper.
Limits
Limitations and bias
- • Abstract-only summaries can miss critical details (population, protocol, adherence, and context).
- • Single studies often don’t generalize to your event, history, and training load; treat results as a starting point.
- • If your context differs (elite vs recreational; cycling vs running), adjust expectations and be conservative.
- • This is performance information, not medical advice.
Adaptive AI coach for iPhone
Meet your adaptive AI coach.
Tell your coach what you are training for. It builds the plan, follows the work you complete, and adapts upcoming training when recovery, your schedule, or real life changes.
Keep going
Performance Science Lab
Research summaries for endurance athletes, with study context, practical protocols, and clear limitations.
Mobility performance research
Mobility work should be minimal, targeted, and connected to training — not a second sport.
Caffeine for endurance performance: a practical protocol
Evidence-informed protocol: Caffeine for endurance performance: a practical protocol. Practical steps, who it helps, and what to watch out for.