According to a systematic review study published in 'The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy', the most suitable moderate to high methodological quality evidence with a low risk of bias does not support movement-based classification (MBC) as more effective to general exercise or guideline-based care (GBC) for non radicular low back pain (LBP) treatment.

Riley SP et al. investigated if the MBC systems are more effective than therapeutic exercise or GBC in improving outcomes in low back pain (LBP) patients. It was based upon randomized clinical trials (RCT) with moderate to high methodological quality and a low to moderate risk of bias. An experienced librarian in the systematic review methodology fabricated the search strategy. Peer-review was undertaken using PRESS STANDARD by a second research librarian. The database search on Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was done from their inception to May 17, 2018. The identified RCTs with a PEDro score of ≥6 were screened and determined for risk of bias by two blinded individual reviewers via Covidence. Moderate-to-high methodological quality was observed in 7 studies. One study was found to have a high risk of bias. Only 1 study out of 6 remaining studies noted a statistically significant difference at the immediate follow-up that was not clinically significant. No significance was observed at 6 and 12 months.

There is a lack of moderate to high methodological quality RCTs with a similar methodology that compares MBC to the standard of care treatments for LBP patients. The studies with moderate to high methodological quality that have a low risk of bias do not favour MBCs as being better than general exercise or GBC in nonradicular LBP treatment.