手动治疗和压力生物反馈引导的颈深屈肌力量训练对颈源性头痛患者疼痛和功能限制的疗效:一项随机比较研究。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Pain Research & Management Pub Date : 2023-08-14 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2023/1799005
Shahnaz Hasan, Nasrin Bharti, Ahmad H Alghadir, Amir Iqbal, Naiyer Shahzad, Abeer R Ibrahim
{"title":"手动治疗和压力生物反馈引导的颈深屈肌力量训练对颈源性头痛患者疼痛和功能限制的疗效:一项随机比较研究。","authors":"Shahnaz Hasan,&nbsp;Nasrin Bharti,&nbsp;Ahmad H Alghadir,&nbsp;Amir Iqbal,&nbsp;Naiyer Shahzad,&nbsp;Abeer R Ibrahim","doi":"10.1155/2023/1799005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to compare the efficacy of manual therapy and pressure biofeedback-guided DCFM strength training on pain intensity and functional limitations in individuals with CGH. <i>Trial Design</i>. A double-blinded, two-arm parallel group randomized comparative design.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After applying the eligibility criteria, sixty out of eighty-nine CGH patients were recruited from King Saud University Medical Center in Riyadh and randomly allocated to intervention groups using simple random sampling. Group 1 underwent pressure biofeedback-guided DCFM strength training and conventional treatment, while Group 2 received manual therapy and conventional treatment for three consecutive weeks. The main outcome measures were scores on the visual analog scale (VAS) and the headache disability index (HDI). One assessor and two physical therapists were blinded to group allocation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty out of eighty participants aged 29-40 years were randomized into intervention groups (<i>n</i> = 30/group; age (mean ± standard deviation): group 1 = 35.0 ± 2.82; group 2 = 34.87 ± 2.60), and their data were analyzed. A significant improvement (95% CI, <i>p</i> < 0.05) was observed within each group when comparing the VAS and HDI scores between baseline and postintervention. In contrast, between-group comparisons for the outcome score of VAS and HDI revealed nonsignificant differences in the first, second, and third weeks after intervention, except for the VAS score, which showed a significant difference in weeks 2 and 3 after intervention. Cohen's <i>d</i>-value indicated that the intervention effect size for reducing pain was larger in group 1 than in group 2 at weeks 2 and 3.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared with manual therapy, pressure biofeedback-guided DCFM strength training showed a greater reduction in pain intensity (assessed using the VAS) at weeks two and three. However, both treatments were equally effective in lowering headache-related functional limitations in patients with CGH. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrial.gov PRS (Identifier ID: NCT05692232).</p>","PeriodicalId":19913,"journal":{"name":"Pain Research & Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10442171/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Efficacy of Manual Therapy and Pressure Biofeedback-Guided Deep Cervical Flexor Muscle Strength Training on Pain and Functional Limitations in Individuals with Cervicogenic Headaches: A Randomized Comparative Study.\",\"authors\":\"Shahnaz Hasan,&nbsp;Nasrin Bharti,&nbsp;Ahmad H Alghadir,&nbsp;Amir Iqbal,&nbsp;Naiyer Shahzad,&nbsp;Abeer R Ibrahim\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2023/1799005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to compare the efficacy of manual therapy and pressure biofeedback-guided DCFM strength training on pain intensity and functional limitations in individuals with CGH. <i>Trial Design</i>. A double-blinded, two-arm parallel group randomized comparative design.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>After applying the eligibility criteria, sixty out of eighty-nine CGH patients were recruited from King Saud University Medical Center in Riyadh and randomly allocated to intervention groups using simple random sampling. Group 1 underwent pressure biofeedback-guided DCFM strength training and conventional treatment, while Group 2 received manual therapy and conventional treatment for three consecutive weeks. The main outcome measures were scores on the visual analog scale (VAS) and the headache disability index (HDI). One assessor and two physical therapists were blinded to group allocation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty out of eighty participants aged 29-40 years were randomized into intervention groups (<i>n</i> = 30/group; age (mean ± standard deviation): group 1 = 35.0 ± 2.82; group 2 = 34.87 ± 2.60), and their data were analyzed. A significant improvement (95% CI, <i>p</i> < 0.05) was observed within each group when comparing the VAS and HDI scores between baseline and postintervention. In contrast, between-group comparisons for the outcome score of VAS and HDI revealed nonsignificant differences in the first, second, and third weeks after intervention, except for the VAS score, which showed a significant difference in weeks 2 and 3 after intervention. Cohen's <i>d</i>-value indicated that the intervention effect size for reducing pain was larger in group 1 than in group 2 at weeks 2 and 3.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared with manual therapy, pressure biofeedback-guided DCFM strength training showed a greater reduction in pain intensity (assessed using the VAS) at weeks two and three. However, both treatments were equally effective in lowering headache-related functional limitations in patients with CGH. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrial.gov PRS (Identifier ID: NCT05692232).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19913,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pain Research & Management\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10442171/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pain Research & Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/1799005\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain Research & Management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/1799005","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在比较手法治疗和压力生物反馈引导的DCFM力量训练对CGH患者疼痛强度和功能限制的疗效。试验设计。双盲、双臂平行组随机对照设计。方法:在应用资格标准后,从利雅得沙特国王大学医学中心招募了89名CGH患者中的60名,并使用简单随机抽样将其随机分配到干预组。第1组接受了压力生物反馈指导的DCFM力量训练和常规治疗,而第2组接受了连续三周的手动治疗和常规治疗。主要的结果指标是视觉模拟评分(VAS)和头痛残疾指数(HDI)。一名评估员和两名物理治疗师对小组分配视而不见。结果:80名参与者中有60名年龄在29-40岁之间 年被随机分为干预组(n = 30/组;年龄(平均值 ± 标准偏差):组1 = 35 ± 2.82;第2组 = 34.87 ± 2.60),并对其数据进行了分析。当比较基线和干预后的VAS和HDI评分时,观察到各组有显著改善(95%CI,p<0.05)。相反,VAS和HDI结果评分的组间比较显示,在干预后的第一、第二和第三周,除了VAS评分外,没有显著差异,VAS评分在干预后第2和第3周显示出显著差异。Cohen的d值表明,在第2周和第3周,第1组减轻疼痛的干预效果大于第2组。然而,两种治疗方法在降低CGH患者头痛相关功能限制方面同样有效。该试验已在ClinicalTrial.gov PRS注册(标识符ID:NCT05692232)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The Efficacy of Manual Therapy and Pressure Biofeedback-Guided Deep Cervical Flexor Muscle Strength Training on Pain and Functional Limitations in Individuals with Cervicogenic Headaches: A Randomized Comparative Study.

The Efficacy of Manual Therapy and Pressure Biofeedback-Guided Deep Cervical Flexor Muscle Strength Training on Pain and Functional Limitations in Individuals with Cervicogenic Headaches: A Randomized Comparative Study.

The Efficacy of Manual Therapy and Pressure Biofeedback-Guided Deep Cervical Flexor Muscle Strength Training on Pain and Functional Limitations in Individuals with Cervicogenic Headaches: A Randomized Comparative Study.

The Efficacy of Manual Therapy and Pressure Biofeedback-Guided Deep Cervical Flexor Muscle Strength Training on Pain and Functional Limitations in Individuals with Cervicogenic Headaches: A Randomized Comparative Study.

Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of manual therapy and pressure biofeedback-guided DCFM strength training on pain intensity and functional limitations in individuals with CGH. Trial Design. A double-blinded, two-arm parallel group randomized comparative design.

Methods: After applying the eligibility criteria, sixty out of eighty-nine CGH patients were recruited from King Saud University Medical Center in Riyadh and randomly allocated to intervention groups using simple random sampling. Group 1 underwent pressure biofeedback-guided DCFM strength training and conventional treatment, while Group 2 received manual therapy and conventional treatment for three consecutive weeks. The main outcome measures were scores on the visual analog scale (VAS) and the headache disability index (HDI). One assessor and two physical therapists were blinded to group allocation.

Results: Sixty out of eighty participants aged 29-40 years were randomized into intervention groups (n = 30/group; age (mean ± standard deviation): group 1 = 35.0 ± 2.82; group 2 = 34.87 ± 2.60), and their data were analyzed. A significant improvement (95% CI, p < 0.05) was observed within each group when comparing the VAS and HDI scores between baseline and postintervention. In contrast, between-group comparisons for the outcome score of VAS and HDI revealed nonsignificant differences in the first, second, and third weeks after intervention, except for the VAS score, which showed a significant difference in weeks 2 and 3 after intervention. Cohen's d-value indicated that the intervention effect size for reducing pain was larger in group 1 than in group 2 at weeks 2 and 3.

Conclusion: Compared with manual therapy, pressure biofeedback-guided DCFM strength training showed a greater reduction in pain intensity (assessed using the VAS) at weeks two and three. However, both treatments were equally effective in lowering headache-related functional limitations in patients with CGH. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrial.gov PRS (Identifier ID: NCT05692232).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pain Research & Management
Pain Research & Management CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
109
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Pain Research and Management is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies in all areas of pain management. The most recent Impact Factor for Pain Research and Management is 1.685 according to the 2015 Journal Citation Reports released by Thomson Reuters in 2016.
×
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