Past systematic reviews investigated the overall effectiveness of trunk muscle training for Non-specific Low Back Pain (NSLBP) rehabilitation. There is increasing variety of trunk training, with those commonly prescribed for NSLBP can be classified as Motor Control (MC), Isometric (IM) and Isotonic (IT). However, existing ACP (2) and NICE (1) guideline for NSLBP rehabilitation does not recommend any specific trunk training method. PURPOSE: Compare the effectiveness of MC, IM and IT trunk training methods for NSLBP rehabilitation. METHODS: EMBASE, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus and CINAHL databases were searched from inception to June 16, 2020. Data from eligible RCTs were extracted for head-to-head pairwise meta-analysis using Cochrane Collaboration Review Manager 5.4. Outcome assessment based on pain (Visual Analog Scale, VAS), disability (Oswestry Disability Index, ODI and Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire, RMDQ) and back endurance (Sorensen Test, ST). RESULTS: 24 trials were included in the meta-analysis. IM was more effective than control with mean difference (MD) = -1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-2.33, -0.31), I² = 89%, p = 0.01 on VAS; MD = -4.46, 95% CI (-5.30, -3.62), I² = 0%, p < 0.01 on ODI; MD = -7.94, 95% CI (-14.66, -1.21), I² = 96%, p = 0.02 on RMDQ; MD = 43.51s, 95% CI (1.66s, 85.35s), I² = 91%, p = 0.04 on ST. MC was superior to control with MD = -2.16, 95% CI (-3.10, -1.22), I² = 85%, p < 0.01 on VAS; MD = -3.73, 95% CI (-5.91, -1.55), I² = 51%, p < 0.01 on RMDQ. MC was superior to IT on VAS, with MD = -1.76 and 95% CI (-2.64, -.88), I² = 77%, p < 0.01. CONCLUSIONS: IM intervention was shown to be effective in reducing pain, disability, and back endurance for NSLBP subjects. MC was also shown to be effective on some of the measured outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]