Effects of Different Physical Therapy Interventions in Improving Flexibility in University Students with Hamstring Tightness - A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Q1 Health Professions
International journal of exercise science Pub Date : 2024-03-01 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01
Esther Liyanage, Kavinda Malwanage, Dilhari Senarath, Hashini Wijayasinghe, Indrajith Liyanage, Dhananjee Chellapillai, Shiromi Nishshanka
{"title":"Effects of Different Physical Therapy Interventions in Improving Flexibility in University Students with Hamstring Tightness - A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.","authors":"Esther Liyanage, Kavinda Malwanage, Dilhari Senarath, Hashini Wijayasinghe, Indrajith Liyanage, Dhananjee Chellapillai, Shiromi Nishshanka","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of the present study was to identify the different interventions for hamstring flexibility among university students with hamstring tightness and to determine the better treatment method.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Systematic review and network meta-analysis. An electronic search of the databases: Medline, Pubmed, Cochrane, EMBASE, CINAHL, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) was conducted. A total of 11 articles were included in the review. Of these articles, 02 were case-control studies, 02 were interventional pre-post studies and 07 were RCTs. The 07 RCTs were included for network meta-analysis. The findings of the initial network meta-analysis (NMA) which compared control i.e., no intervention with other interventions revealed that all the physical therapy interventions: stretching, electrotherapy combined with stretching, massage, dry needling and neurodynamic exercises combined with stretching and neurodynamics alone were superior to control. Since most studies included stretching as an intervention, a second NMA was conducted to compare the different physical therapy interventions with stretching. The results suggested that US-guided neuromodulation (WMD: -5.80, CI: -12.11, 0.51) had large effects on hamstring flexibility compared to stretching and stretching combined with electrotherapy i.e., cryotherapy and ultrasound (WMD: 0.25, CI: -1.14 to 1.64), MET (WMD: 3.10, CI: -3.28 to 9.48) and massage (WMD: 8.05, CI: -11.90 to 27.18) were inferior to stretching. To further investigate the effects of these interventions three meta-analysis were performed. The results revealed that stretching was more effective (SMD 2.27, 95% 0.72 to 3.81, <i>p</i> < 0.01) compared to control (no intervention). Neurodynamic exercises combined with stretching and neurodynamics alone were found to be superior to stretching alone ((SMD -0.69, 95% -1.35 to -0.03, <i>p</i> < 0.01) and stretching combined with electrotherapy was not significantly better than stretching alone ((SMD -0.07, 95% -1.00 to 0.87, <i>p</i>=0.88). Neurodynamic exercises combined with stretching and neurodynamics alone showed to be superior to the other physical therapy interventions in improving hamstring flexibility for hamstring tightness among university students, however, the reliability of the evidence is low.</p>","PeriodicalId":14171,"journal":{"name":"International journal of exercise science","volume":"17 3","pages":"359-381"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11042845/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of exercise science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to identify the different interventions for hamstring flexibility among university students with hamstring tightness and to determine the better treatment method.

Design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. An electronic search of the databases: Medline, Pubmed, Cochrane, EMBASE, CINAHL, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) was conducted. A total of 11 articles were included in the review. Of these articles, 02 were case-control studies, 02 were interventional pre-post studies and 07 were RCTs. The 07 RCTs were included for network meta-analysis. The findings of the initial network meta-analysis (NMA) which compared control i.e., no intervention with other interventions revealed that all the physical therapy interventions: stretching, electrotherapy combined with stretching, massage, dry needling and neurodynamic exercises combined with stretching and neurodynamics alone were superior to control. Since most studies included stretching as an intervention, a second NMA was conducted to compare the different physical therapy interventions with stretching. The results suggested that US-guided neuromodulation (WMD: -5.80, CI: -12.11, 0.51) had large effects on hamstring flexibility compared to stretching and stretching combined with electrotherapy i.e., cryotherapy and ultrasound (WMD: 0.25, CI: -1.14 to 1.64), MET (WMD: 3.10, CI: -3.28 to 9.48) and massage (WMD: 8.05, CI: -11.90 to 27.18) were inferior to stretching. To further investigate the effects of these interventions three meta-analysis were performed. The results revealed that stretching was more effective (SMD 2.27, 95% 0.72 to 3.81, p < 0.01) compared to control (no intervention). Neurodynamic exercises combined with stretching and neurodynamics alone were found to be superior to stretching alone ((SMD -0.69, 95% -1.35 to -0.03, p < 0.01) and stretching combined with electrotherapy was not significantly better than stretching alone ((SMD -0.07, 95% -1.00 to 0.87, p=0.88). Neurodynamic exercises combined with stretching and neurodynamics alone showed to be superior to the other physical therapy interventions in improving hamstring flexibility for hamstring tightness among university students, however, the reliability of the evidence is low.

不同物理疗法干预对改善大学生腘绳肌紧张症患者柔韧性的影响--系统综述和网络 Meta 分析。
本研究旨在确定对患有腘绳肌紧张症的大学生腘绳肌灵活性的不同干预措施,并确定更好的治疗方法:设计:系统综述和网络荟萃分析。设计:系统综述和网络荟萃分析:对以下数据库进行了电子检索:Medline、Pubmed、Cochrane、EMBASE、CINAHL、物理治疗证据数据库(PEDro)。共有 11 篇文章被纳入综述。在这些文章中,02 篇为病例对照研究,02 篇为干预性前后研究,07 篇为研究性临床试验。这 07 篇研究性试验被纳入网络荟萃分析。最初的网络荟萃分析(NMA)比较了对照组(即无干预措施)和其他干预措施,结果显示所有的物理治疗干预措施:拉伸、结合拉伸的电疗、按摩、干针疗法和结合拉伸的神经动力练习以及单独的神经动力练习均优于对照组。由于大多数研究都将拉伸作为一种干预措施,因此进行了第二次 NMA,以比较不同的理疗干预措施与拉伸。结果表明,与拉伸和拉伸结合电疗(即冷冻疗法和超声波)(WMD:-5.80,CI:-12.11,0.51)相比,US 导向神经调节对腿筋柔韧性的影响更大、冷冻疗法和超声波(WMD:0.25,CI:-1.14 至 1.64)、MET(WMD:3.10,CI:-3.28 至 9.48)和按摩(WMD:8.05,CI:-11.90 至 27.18)则不如拉伸。为了进一步研究这些干预措施的效果,进行了三项荟萃分析。结果显示,与对照组(无干预)相比,拉伸更有效(SMD 2.27,95% 0.72 至 3.81,p < 0.01)。结果发现,结合拉伸的神经动力练习和单独的神经动力练习优于单独的拉伸(SMD -0.69,95% -1.35至-0.03,p <0.01),而结合电疗的拉伸并没有明显优于单独的拉伸(SMD -0.07,95% -1.00至0.87,p=0.88)。在改善大学生腘绳肌紧张症患者的腘绳肌灵活性方面,神经动力训练与拉伸相结合以及单独使用神经动力训练的效果优于其他理疗干预措施,但证据的可靠性较低。
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
International journal of exercise science
International journal of exercise science Health Professions-Occupational Therapy
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
47
审稿时长
26 weeks
×
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