## 3 Results
### Study Characteristics
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Authors and Year** & **Country** & **Sample Size** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Intervention** \\ **Size** \\ \end{tabular} & **Control Size** & **Gender** & **Age** \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., & & & & & Intervention group: & Intervention Group: \\
2023 [35] & United States & 40 & 13 & 27 & \begin{tabular}{c} Female = 77\% \\ Control group: \\ Female = 66\% \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} Intervention Group: \\ mean 37.8 (SD 11.5) \\ Control group: \\ mean 40.3 (SD 12.4) \\ \end{tabular} \\ \[PERSON] et al., & Denmark and & 461 & 232 & 229 & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Intervention Group: \\ Female = 52\% \\ Control Group \\ Female participants: \\ 59\% \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} Intervention Group: \\ mean 48.3 \\ Control group \\ mean 46.7 \\ \end{tabular} \\ \[PERSON] et al., & & & & & Intervention group: & Intervention: mean \\
2020 [32] & Germany & 1245 & 933 & 312 & \begin{tabular}{c} Female = 65\% \\ Control: \\ Female = 64\% \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} Intervention Group: \\ mean 37.0 (SD 12.4) \\ Control group: \\ mean 37.0 \\ years (SD 12.6) \\ \end{tabular} \\ \[PERSON] et al., 2023 [29] & South Korea & 100 & 50 & 50 & \begin{tabular}{c} Intervention group: \\ Female = 40\% \\ Control group: \\ mean 40.3 (SD 12.4) \\ \end{tabular} \\ \[PERSON] et al., 2022 [21] & Japan & 99 & 48 & 51 & \begin{tabular}{c} Intervention Group: \\ mean 47.11 \\ \end{tabular} \\  & Japan & 99 & 48 & 51 & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Intervention group: \\ Female = 40\% \\ Control group: \\ Female = 66\% \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} Internal group: \\ mean 33.21 \\ (SD 6.11) \\ \end{tabular} \\ \[PERSON] et al., & & & & & Intervention group: & Intervention Group: \\
2019 [33] & Germany & 101 & 53 & 48 & \begin{tabular}{c} Female = 56.3\% \\ Control group: \\ Female = 54.9\% \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} Intervention Group: \\ mean 47.9 (SD 10.2) \\ Control group: \\ mean 46.9 (SD 12.3) \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., 2019 [30] & Hong Kong & 8 & 5 & 3 & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Intervention group: \\ mean 35 (SD 10.93) \\ Control group: \\ Female = 100\% \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} Intervention Group: \\ mean 35 (SD 10.93) \\ Control group: \\ mean 50.33 \\ (SD 9.29) \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline [PERSON] et al., & & & & & & Intervention Group: \\
2018 [34] & India & 93 & 45 & 48 & / &
\begin{tabular}{c} Intervention Group: \\ mean 41.4 (SD 14.2) \\ Control group: \\ mean 41 (SD 14.2) \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: The characteristics and data of participants included in the systematic review and the meta-analysis. Control group treatments varied across studies. Five studies described control interventions as standardized care provided by clinicians, in accordance with national guidelines [21; 31; 32; 35]. The remaining three studies specified that control participants received treatments from experienced physiotherapists, including heat therapy, ultrasound, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), and exercise physiotherapy such as stretching, sling exercises, and core stability training [29; 30; 33]. All eight studies assessed pain outcomes, with data extracted at a 4-week follow-up for meta-analysis. Seven studies also evaluated functional impairment, while three studies examined mental health outcomes, including fear avoidance behaviors, psychological distress, and mood disorders. Most interventions relied on mobile device apps for AI-assisted physiotherapy, while one study utilized AI calibration on a tonal exercise trainer.