Effects of muscle specific as compared to movement specific muscle energy technique in mechanical neck pain: A randomized controlled trial.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Muhammad Osama
{"title":"Effects of muscle specific as compared to movement specific muscle energy technique in mechanical neck pain: A randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Muhammad Osama","doi":"10.3233/BMR-210293","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Muscle energy technique (MET) is found to be effective for the management of neck pain and in addition to the muscle specific approach, clinicians may also adopt movement specific approach for METs. However, the literature is deficient in terms of comparison of muscle specific and movement specific METs in the management of mechanical neck pain.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the effects of muscle specific and movement specific METs in the management of mechanical neck pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single blind parallel design randomized controlled trial was conducted on 66 participants with mechanical neck pain ranging from 40-80 mm on visual analogue scale (VAS), aged between 19-44 years with pain and limitation on cervical motion. Once included, the participants were randomly allocated to two groups, namely the muscle specific MET group and the movement specific MET group. Outcome measures included VAS, Neck Disability Index (NDI) and cervical range of motion (ROM).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant differences (p> 0.05) were observed, neither immediately nor after 5 days, between muscle specific and movement specific MET in terms of VAS, NDI and ROM. However, a significant difference (p< 0.05) was observed in both groups in terms of pre- and post-analysis for all outcome variables.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both muscle specific and movement specific METs are effective in the management of mechanical neck pain, with no significant differences between the two treatment techniques.</p>","PeriodicalId":15129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/BMR-210293","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Muscle energy technique (MET) is found to be effective for the management of neck pain and in addition to the muscle specific approach, clinicians may also adopt movement specific approach for METs. However, the literature is deficient in terms of comparison of muscle specific and movement specific METs in the management of mechanical neck pain.

Objective: To compare the effects of muscle specific and movement specific METs in the management of mechanical neck pain.

Methods: A single blind parallel design randomized controlled trial was conducted on 66 participants with mechanical neck pain ranging from 40-80 mm on visual analogue scale (VAS), aged between 19-44 years with pain and limitation on cervical motion. Once included, the participants were randomly allocated to two groups, namely the muscle specific MET group and the movement specific MET group. Outcome measures included VAS, Neck Disability Index (NDI) and cervical range of motion (ROM).

Results: No significant differences (p> 0.05) were observed, neither immediately nor after 5 days, between muscle specific and movement specific MET in terms of VAS, NDI and ROM. However, a significant difference (p< 0.05) was observed in both groups in terms of pre- and post-analysis for all outcome variables.

Conclusions: Both muscle specific and movement specific METs are effective in the management of mechanical neck pain, with no significant differences between the two treatment techniques.

特定肌肉能量技术与特定运动肌肉能量技术对机械性颈痛的疗效对比:随机对照试验
背景:肌肉能量技术(MET)被认为是治疗颈部疼痛的有效方法,除了肌肉特异性方法外,临床医生还可采用运动特异性方法进行 MET。然而,在治疗机械性颈部疼痛方面,对肌肉能量疗法和运动能量疗法进行比较的文献还很缺乏:比较肌肉特定MET和运动特定MET在治疗机械性颈痛中的效果:对 66 名患有机械性颈部疼痛(视觉模拟量表(VAS)显示为 40-80 毫米)、年龄在 19-44 岁之间、伴有疼痛且颈椎活动受限的参与者进行了单盲平行设计随机对照试验。参加者被随机分配到两组,即肌肉特定 MET 组和运动特定 MET 组。结果测量包括 VAS、颈部残疾指数(NDI)和颈椎活动范围(ROM):结果:肌肉特定 MET 组和运动特定 MET 组在 VAS、NDI 和 ROM 方面均无明显差异(P> 0.05)。然而,在所有结果变量的前后分析中,两组都观察到了明显的差异(p< 0.05):结论:肌肉特异性 MET 和运动特异性 MET 都能有效治疗机械性颈痛,两种治疗技术之间没有明显差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
194
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation is a journal whose main focus is to present relevant information about the interdisciplinary approach to musculoskeletal rehabilitation for clinicians who treat patients with back and musculoskeletal pain complaints. It will provide readers with both 1) a general fund of knowledge on the assessment and management of specific problems and 2) new information considered to be state-of-the-art in the field. The intended audience is multidisciplinary as well as multi-specialty. In each issue clinicians can find information which they can use in their patient setting the very next day.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信