首页> 外文OA文献 >COMPARISON OF MECHANICAL vs. MANUAL MANIPULATION METHODS FOR LOW BACK PAIN
【2h】

COMPARISON OF MECHANICAL vs. MANUAL MANIPULATION METHODS FOR LOW BACK PAIN

机译:下腰痛机械与手动操作方法的比较

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

ABSTRACT:Purpose and Study Design: Prospective cohort study to explore the clinical treatment effect of mechanical vs. manual manipulation for acute low back pain.Methods: 92 patients with a history of acute low back pain were recruited from three private chiropractic offices. Two of these offices utilized manual lumbar manipulation and one used mechanical instrument manipulation (Activator) as their primary modes of treatment. The chiropractors used a "treatment as usual" protocol with the participants for a maximum of eight visits or four weeks, which ever occurred first. Primary and secondary outcome measures were the differences in pain and Oswestry scores from baseline to four weeks, respectively. Results: Socio-demographic characteristics of the two cohorts at baseline were not found to show any significant differences between the groups except for age. The Activator cohort had a significantly higher utilization of adjunctive modalities and x-rays, with a mean number of office visits about twice that of the manual manipulation cohort at four weeks. The pain scores decreased in both groups with the manual manipulation group showing a slightly greater amount of pain reduction at four weeks, but this difference did not reach statistical significance after controlling for baseline pain. The manual manipulation group also showed a slightly greater reduction in Oswestry scores from baseline to four-weeks, but this difference was not statistically significant after adjusting for baseline Oswestry score.Conclusions: In this observational study of treatment-as-usual there was no significantly greater reduction in pain scores or Oswestry scores between the manipulation and Activator groups at four weeks. There were many differences between the Activator and manual manipulation groups with respect to treatment beliefs and expectations, modality usage, and frequency/duration of care, which are potential sources of confounding in the interpretation of these results. This study provides important pilot data and research issues for the design of a future randomized clinical trial that can control for these issues of confounding variables.
机译:摘要:目的与研究设计:前瞻性队列研究旨在探讨机械与手法治疗急性下腰痛的临床疗效。方法:从三个私人脊骨治疗科招募了92例有急性下腰痛病史的患者。这些办公室中有两个使用手动腰部操纵,而一个使用机械器械操纵(激活器)作为主要治疗方式。脊医采用与参与者一样的“照常治疗”方案,最多进行八次就诊或四个星期,以先发生为准。主要和次要结果指标分别是从基线到四周的疼痛和Oswestry评分的差异。结果:在基线时,这两个队列的社会人口统计学特征未显示出年龄之间的任何显着差异。 Activator队列对辅助方式和X射线的利用率要高得多,平均到办公室就诊的次数大约是四个星期的手动操作队列的两倍。两组的疼痛评分均下降,而手动操作组在第4周的疼痛减轻程度略高,但在控制基线疼痛后,该差异未达到统计学意义。手动操作组也显示Oswestry评分从基线到4周的降低幅度稍大,但是在调整基线Oswestry评分之后,这种差异在统计学上没有统计学意义。结论:在本次照常治疗的观察性研究中,没有显着差异在第4周时,操作组和激活剂组之间的疼痛评分或Oswestry评分的降低更大。在治疗信念和期望,治疗方式的使用以及护理的频率/持续时间方面,激活剂和手动操作组之间存在许多差异,这是解释这些结果时可能产生混淆的原因。这项研究为未来的随机临床试验设计提供了重要的试验数据和研究问题,可以控制这些混杂变量的问题。

著录项

  • 作者

    Schneider Michael J;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2009
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 en
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号