Page 30
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Matrix Rhythm Therapy Versus Interferential Therapy Combined
with Lumbar Stabilization Exercises in Chronic Non-Specific Low
Back Pain: A Randomized Comparative Trial
Lipika Mahajan
1
, Dr. Deepak Yadav
2
1
Student Researcher, MPT Musculoskeletal Disorders, Department of Physiotherapy, Dolphin (PG)
Institute of Biomedical and Natural Sciences, Dehradun
2
Guide, Heart-Lungs Transplant Physiotherapist, MPT Cardiopulmonary, Assistant Professor,
Department of Physiotherapy, Dolphin (PG) Institute of Biomedical and Natural Sciences, Dehradun
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2026.150600004
Received: 12 June 2026; Accepted: 17 June 2026; Published: 00 July 2026
ABSTRACT
Background: Chronic non-specific low back pain is a persistent musculoskeletal condition associated with
pain, disability, impaired movement confidence, and reduced participation in daily life. Lumbar stabilization
exercises are widely used in rehabilitation; however, the added value of different adjunct modalities remains
uncertain.
Objective: To compare the effects of Matrix Rhythm Therapy and Interferential Therapy, each combined with
lumbar stabilization exercises, on pain intensity, disability, and multidimensional pain perception in individuals
with chronic non-specific low back pain.
Methods: Thirty participants with chronic non-specific low back pain were allocated to Matrix Rhythm Therapy
plus lumbar stabilization exercises (MRT + LSE; n=15) or Interferential Therapy plus lumbar stabilization
exercises (IFT + LSE; n=15). Interventions were delivered three times weekly for six weeks. Outcomes included
the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and McGill Pain Questionnaire,
assessed at baseline and after intervention.
Results: Both groups improved after treatment. The MRT + LSE group showed larger mean reductions in
NPRS (5.13 points), ODI (28.80 points), and McGill Pain Questionnaire scores (29.86 points) than the IFT +
LSE group, which improved by 2.33, 18.00, and 17.27 points, respectively. Summary-based between-group
analyses favored MRT + LSE for NPRS, ODI, and McGill outcomes.
Conclusion: Both interventions were associated with reductions in pain and disability; however, Matrix
Rhythm Therapy combined with lumbar stabilization exercises produced greater improvements across all
reported outcomes. Larger trials with corrected demographic reporting, allocation concealment, assessor
blinding, and long-term follow-up are needed to confirm these findings.
Keywords: Chronic low back pain; Matrix Rhythm Therapy; Interferential Therapy; Lumbar stabilization;
Physiotherapy; Rehabilitation.
INTRODUCTION
Low back pain is one of the most common musculoskeletal complaints encountered in clinical practice and
remains a major contributor to disability, restricted activity, and health-care utilization.
1,2,3
When symptoms
persist for more than twelve weeks and no specific structural pathology is identified, the condition is commonly
Page 31
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
described as chronic non-specific low back pain.
2,3
Its impact is not limited to pain intensity; patients frequently
report reduced spinal mobility, impaired confidence in movement, fear of recurrence, and difficulty performing
daily activities.
4
Rehabilitation for chronic non-specific low back pain increasingly emphasizes active management.
5
Lumbar
stabilization exercises are designed to improve motor control and endurance of the deep trunk muscles,
particularly the transversus abdominis, multifidus, diaphragm, and pelvic floor.
6,7
These muscles contribute to
segmental control and may reduce mechanical loading on pain-sensitive lumbar structures.
6,7
Nevertheless, many
patients with chronic pain require adjunctive strategies to reduce pain sufficiently to participate effectively in
exercise.
Interferential Therapy is a commonly used electrotherapeutic modality for pain modulation.
8
It is believed to
reduce pain through stimulation of large-diameter afferent fibers, gate-control mechanisms, and possible
endogenous opioid effects.
8,9
In routine physiotherapy settings, it is often used before or alongside therapeutic
exercise to improve patient comfort.
Matrix Rhythm Therapy is a mechanotherapeutic modality proposed to act through rhythmic oscillations applied
to skeletal muscle and surrounding connective tissues.
10
The therapy is intended to improve local tissue mobility,
microcirculation, lymphatic drainage, and neuromuscular coordination.
10
Although Matrix Rhythm Therapy has
gained clinical use in musculoskeletal rehabilitation, comparative evidence against established modalities
remains limited.
10,11
The present study compared Matrix Rhythm Therapy and Interferential Therapy, both combined with the same
lumbar stabilization exercise program, in individuals with chronic non-specific low back pain. The primary focus
was change in pain intensity, functional disability, and multidimensional pain perception after six weeks of
intervention.
METHODS
Study Design
A randomized comparative experimental study was conducted over a six-week intervention period. Participants
were allocated to one of two active physiotherapy interventions: Matrix Rhythm Therapy combined with lumbar
stabilization exercises or Interferential Therapy combined with lumbar stabilization exercises.
Population
Thirty participants with chronic non-specific low back pain were included, with 15 participants in each
intervention group. Eligibility criteria included chronic low back pain lasting at least 12 weeks and baseline pain
intensity of at least 4 on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. Participants with spinal surgery, vertebral fracture,
neurological deficits, systemic spinal pathology, pregnancy, or contraindications to electrotherapy were
excluded.
Interventions
Group A received Matrix Rhythm Therapy for 20 minutes over the lumbar and paraspinal region, followed by
supervised lumbar stabilization exercises. Group B received Interferential Therapy for 20 minutes over the
lumbar region, followed by the same lumbar stabilization exercise program. Sessions were delivered three times
per week for six weeks.
Outcome measures
Pain intensity was assessed using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. Functional disability was measured using the
Oswestry Disability Index. Multidimensional pain perception was measured using the McGill Pain
Questionnaire. Outcomes were recorded at baseline and after completion of the six-week intervention.
Page 32
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics are presented as mean and standard deviation. Within-group changes were examined using
paired t-tests. Effect size for within-group change was expressed as Cohen's dz. Between-group differences in
improvement were calculated from reported summary statistics using independent-samples comparison of
change scores. Hedges g was used to express standardized between-group effect size. A p-value of less than 0.05
was considered statistically significant. Because the original participant-level dataset was not available to the
author of this manuscript draft, summary-based estimates should be verified before final journal submission.
RESULTS
Within-group Outcomes
Outcome
Group
Baseline
mean
+/- SD
Post
mean
+/- SD
Mean
improvement
95% CI
t
p
NPRS
MRT +
LSE
7.60 +/-
0.83
2.47 +/-
0.52
5.13
4.63 to
5.63
22.18
<0.001
NPRS
IFT +
LSE
7.53 +/-
0.75
5.20 +/-
1.59
2.33
1.58 to
3.08
6.66
0.020
ODI
MRT +
LSE
50.93
+/- 4.19
22.13
+/- 3.90
28.80
26.29 to
31.31
24.60
<0.001
ODI
IFT +
LSE
51.33
+/- 4.58
33.33
+/- 4.26
18.00
15.36 to
20.64
14.63
<0.001
McGill Pain
Questionnaire
MRT +
LSE
46.93
+/- 3.05
17.07
+/- 2.46
29.86
27.86 to
31.86
32.10
<0.001
McGill Pain
Questionnaire
IFT +
LSE
46.47
+/- 3.33
29.20
+/- 4.03
17.27
15.08 to
19.46
16.92
<0.001
Table 1. Baseline, post-intervention, and within-group change scores.
Both intervention groups demonstrated improvements from baseline to post-intervention. Improvements were
numerically larger in the Matrix Rhythm Therapy group across all measured outcomes.
Between-group Comparison of Improvement
Outcome
MRT + LSE
improvement
IFT + LSE
improvement
Mean
difference
95%
CI
t
df
p
Hedges
g
NPRS
5.13 +/- 0.90
2.33 +/- 1.35
2.80
1.93 to
3.67
6.68
24.3
<0.001
2.37
ODI
28.80 +/- 4.53
18.00 +/- 4.77
10.80
7.32 to
14.28
6.36
27.9
<0.001
2.26
McGill Pain
Questionnaire
29.86 +/- 3.60
17.27 +/- 3.95
12.59
9.76 to
15.42
9.12
27.8
<0.001
3.24
Table 2. Summary-based between-group comparison of improvement scores.
Page 33
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
The between-group estimates favored Matrix Rhythm Therapy combined with lumbar stabilization exercises.
The largest standardized between-group effect was observed for the McGill Pain Questionnaire, followed by
NPRS and ODI.
Figure 1. Mean baseline and post-intervention outcome scores by group.
Figure 2. Mean improvement after six weeks by treatment group.
Page 34
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Figure 3. Summary-based between-group effect sizes expressed as Hedges g.
DISCUSSION
This study found that both Matrix Rhythm Therapy and Interferential Therapy, when combined with lumbar
stabilization exercises, were associated with meaningful improvements in pain intensity, disability, and pain
perception among participants with chronic non-specific low back pain. The direction of findings was consistent
across all three outcome measures, with greater improvement observed in the Matrix Rhythm Therapy group.
The larger reductions in pain and disability following Matrix Rhythm Therapy may reflect a treatment effect
extending beyond short-term pain modulation.
10,11
Matrix Rhythm Therapy is proposed to influence myofascial
tone, local tissue mobility, microcirculation, and neuromuscular coordination. These effects may help reduce
nociceptive input and improve tolerance to stabilization exercises. When participants are able to exercise with
less discomfort, improvements in spinal control and functional performance may become more pronounced.
6,7
Interferential Therapy also improved outcomes, supporting its clinical role as an adjunct for pain relief in chronic
low back pain rehabilitation.
8,12,13
However, the magnitude of change was smaller than that observed in the
Matrix Rhythm Therapy group. This may be because Interferential Therapy primarily targets sensory pain
modulation, while chronic non-specific low back pain frequently involves motor control deficits, altered muscle
activation, and myofascial restrictions that may require broader neuromuscular intervention.
8,9
The findings support the practical value of combining passive or adjunctive modalities with active rehabilitation.
Lumbar stabilization exercises were common to both groups and likely contributed to improvements in spinal
support, postural control, and confidence during movement.
5,6,7,14
The results suggest that the choice of adjunct
modality may influence the magnitude of clinical recovery.
Although the results are encouraging, they should be interpreted carefully. The study included only 30
participants, and the available dissertation report contained inconsistent age reporting. The absence of long-term
follow-up also limits interpretation of durability. Future research should use adequately powered randomized
controlled designs, transparent randomization and allocation procedures, assessor blinding, and objective
measures of muscle function or physical performance.
Page 35
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
Clinical Implications
Matrix Rhythm Therapy may be considered as an adjunct to lumbar stabilization exercises in chronic
non-specific low back pain rehabilitation.
Interferential Therapy remains a useful pain-modulation modality, but improvements may be smaller
when compared with Matrix Rhythm Therapy in this dataset.
Active stabilization exercises should remain central to management, with adjunct modalities used to
improve comfort, movement quality, and exercise participation.
Clinicians should individualize modality selection according to patient presentation, tolerance,
availability of equipment, and treatment goals.
Limitations
Small sample size limits external validity.
Participant-level demographic data were unavailable for this manuscript draft.
Age reporting in the dissertation appears inconsistent with the inclusion criteria and must be corrected
before submission.
No long-term follow-up was reported.
The between-group statistics in this draft are calculated from reported summary statistics and should be
verified using the original dataset.
Blinding, allocation concealment, and trial registration details were not clearly available in the provided
dissertation text.
CONCLUSION
Matrix Rhythm Therapy and Interferential Therapy, when combined with lumbar stabilization exercises, were
both associated with reductions in pain and disability among individuals with chronic non-specific low back
pain. Matrix Rhythm Therapy produced greater improvements across NPRS, ODI, and McGill Pain
Questionnaire outcomes in the available study results. These findings support further investigation of Matrix
Rhythm Therapy as an adjunct to exercise-based rehabilitation, preferably through larger and methodologically
rigorous randomized controlled trials.
Declarations
Ethics approval: Ethical approval was taken from the institutional Ethical Committee.
Consent to participate: Written informed consent was reported as part of the research protocol.
Conflict of interest: The authors declare none financial or non-financial competing interests.
Funding: No external funding is reported in the provided research.
Data availability: Data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request, subject to
institutional permission. The analysis in this draft is based on summary results reported in the research.
REFERENCES
1. Vos T, Lim SS, Abbafati C, Abbas KM, Abbasi M, Abbasifard M, et al. Global burden of low back pain,
1990-2020: systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet. 2020;396(10249):1204-
1222.
2. Airaksinen O, Brox JI, Cedraschi C, Hildebrandt J, Klaber-Moffett J, Kovacs F, et al. European
guidelines for the management of chronic nonspecific low back pain. Eur Spine J. 2006;15(Suppl
2):S192-S300.
3. Deyo RA, Weinstein JN. Low back pain. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(5):363-370.
Page 36
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue VI, June 2026
4. Vlaeyen JWS, Linton SJ. Fear-avoidance model of chronic musculoskeletal pain: 12 years on. Pain.
2012;153(6):1144-1147.
5. Delitto A, George SZ, Van Dillen L, Whitman JM, Sowa G, Shekelle P, et al. Low back pain clinical
practice guidelines. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42(4):A1-A57.
6. Akuthota V, Nadler SF. Core strengthening. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85(3 Suppl 1):S86-S92.
7. Richardson CA, Hodges PW, Hides JA. Therapeutic Exercise for Lumbopelvic Stabilization. 2nd ed.
Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2004.
8. Fuentes JP, Armijo-Olivo S, Funabashi M, Miciak M, Dick B, Warren S, et al. Effectiveness of
interferential current therapy in musculoskeletal pain. Phys Ther. 2010;90(9):1219-1238.
9. Melzack R, Wall PD. Pain mechanisms: a new theory. Science. 1965;150(3699):971-979.
10. Gohil DM, Kothari D, Baxi G, Palekar T. Comparison of matrix rhythm therapy versus Pilates on pain,
lumbar flexibility, functional impairments, and pelvic inclination in chronic low back pain. Med J Dr DY
Patil Vidyapeeth. 2023;16(Suppl 1):S126-S131.
11. Özcan NT, Calik BB, Kabul EG. The effectiveness of matrix rhythm therapy in patients with chronic
low back pain. Spine. 2021;46(12):781-787.
12. Zuo C, Zheng Z, Ma X, Wei F, Wang Y, Yin Y, et al. Efficacy of core muscle exercise combined with
interferential therapy in alleviating chronic low back pain in high-performance fighter pilots: a
randomized controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2024;24:700.
13. Almeida N, Paladini LH, Korelo RG, Liebano RE, de Macedo ACB. Immediate effects of the
combination of interferential therapy parameters on chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial.
Pain Pract. 2020;20(6):615-625.
14. Bhadauria EA, Gurudut P. Comparative effectiveness of lumbar stabilization, dynamic strengthening and
Pilates exercises in chronic low back pain. Int J Physiother. 2017;4(2):70-76.