弹性带阻力训练与本体感觉训练对慢性踝关节不稳定患者平衡和自我报告测量的疗效比较:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION
Christos Fakontis , Paris Iakovidis , Konstantinos Kasimis , Dimitrios Lytras , Georgios Koutras , Antonis Fetlis , Ioannis Algiounidis
{"title":"弹性带阻力训练与本体感觉训练对慢性踝关节不稳定患者平衡和自我报告测量的疗效比较:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Christos Fakontis ,&nbsp;Paris Iakovidis ,&nbsp;Konstantinos Kasimis ,&nbsp;Dimitrios Lytras ,&nbsp;Georgios Koutras ,&nbsp;Antonis Fetlis ,&nbsp;Ioannis Algiounidis","doi":"10.1016/j.ptsp.2023.09.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Proprioceptive training and resistance training are physiotherapy treatment methods for Chronic Ankle Instability (CAI).</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To compare the efficacy of proprioceptive training to resistance training with elastic bands for treating CAI as measured by the Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT), the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), and the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool (CAIT).</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>Our systematic study and meta-analysis was based on the PICOS and PRISMA protocols. The PubMed, PEDro<span>, and ScienceDirect<span> databases were searched for randomized clinical trials on proprioceptive and resistance training. Risk of bias was assessed according to Cochrane guidelines and quality of evidence was reported using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach (GRADE).</span></span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Five studies involving 259 patients were included in the review. According to the findings of the meta-analysis, proprioceptive training was similarly effective with resistance training in SEBT and FAAM measures. Compared with resistance exercise, proprioceptive training demonstrated some benefits in CAIT scores (weighted mean difference [WMD] = −2.21, 95% CI = −4.05–0.36), but these intervention results were not clinically significant (MDC, MCID score &gt;3 points).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Low-quality evidence from studies showed that neither of the interventions was superior on the SEBT or the FAAM scores in individuals with CAI because no clinically significant differences were found. More high-quality studies comparing the two interventions are needed to draw firm conclusions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49698,"journal":{"name":"Physical Therapy in Sport","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of resistance training with elastic bands compared to proprioceptive training on balance and self-report measures in patients with chronic ankle instability: A systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Christos Fakontis ,&nbsp;Paris Iakovidis ,&nbsp;Konstantinos Kasimis ,&nbsp;Dimitrios Lytras ,&nbsp;Georgios Koutras ,&nbsp;Antonis Fetlis ,&nbsp;Ioannis Algiounidis\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ptsp.2023.09.009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Proprioceptive training and resistance training are physiotherapy treatment methods for Chronic Ankle Instability (CAI).</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To compare the efficacy of proprioceptive training to resistance training with elastic bands for treating CAI as measured by the Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT), the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), and the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool (CAIT).</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>Our systematic study and meta-analysis was based on the PICOS and PRISMA protocols. The PubMed, PEDro<span>, and ScienceDirect<span> databases were searched for randomized clinical trials on proprioceptive and resistance training. Risk of bias was assessed according to Cochrane guidelines and quality of evidence was reported using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach (GRADE).</span></span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Five studies involving 259 patients were included in the review. According to the findings of the meta-analysis, proprioceptive training was similarly effective with resistance training in SEBT and FAAM measures. Compared with resistance exercise, proprioceptive training demonstrated some benefits in CAIT scores (weighted mean difference [WMD] = −2.21, 95% CI = −4.05–0.36), but these intervention results were not clinically significant (MDC, MCID score &gt;3 points).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Low-quality evidence from studies showed that neither of the interventions was superior on the SEBT or the FAAM scores in individuals with CAI because no clinically significant differences were found. More high-quality studies comparing the two interventions are needed to draw firm conclusions.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Physical Therapy in Sport\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Physical Therapy in Sport\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1466853X23001244\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physical Therapy in Sport","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1466853X23001244","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本体感觉训练和阻力训练是治疗慢性踝关节不稳定的物理疗法。目的:比较本体感觉训练与弹性带阻力训练治疗CAI的疗效。方法采用星移平衡测试(SEBT)、足踝能力测量(FAAM)和Cumberland踝关节不稳定工具(CAIT)。方法:我们的系统研究和荟萃分析基于PICOS和PRISMA协议。检索PubMed、PEDro和ScienceDirect数据库中关于本体感觉和阻力训练的随机临床试验。根据Cochrane指南评估偏倚风险,并使用建议分级评估、发展和评估方法(GRADE)报告证据质量。结果:共有5项研究涉及259名患者。根据荟萃分析的结果,本体感觉训练与SEBT和FAAM测量中的阻力训练同样有效。与阻力运动相比,本体感觉训练在CAIT评分方面显示出一些益处(加权平均差[MWMD]=-2.21,95%CI=-4.05-0.36),但这些干预结果没有临床意义(MDC,MCID评分>3分)。结论:来自研究的低质量证据表明,两种干预措施在CAI患者的SEBT或FAAM评分方面都不优越,因为没有发现临床显著差异。需要对这两种干预措施进行更多高质量的比较研究,才能得出确切的结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficacy of resistance training with elastic bands compared to proprioceptive training on balance and self-report measures in patients with chronic ankle instability: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Proprioceptive training and resistance training are physiotherapy treatment methods for Chronic Ankle Instability (CAI).

Objective

To compare the efficacy of proprioceptive training to resistance training with elastic bands for treating CAI as measured by the Star Excursion Balance Test (SEBT), the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), and the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool (CAIT).

Method

Our systematic study and meta-analysis was based on the PICOS and PRISMA protocols. The PubMed, PEDro, and ScienceDirect databases were searched for randomized clinical trials on proprioceptive and resistance training. Risk of bias was assessed according to Cochrane guidelines and quality of evidence was reported using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach (GRADE).

Results

Five studies involving 259 patients were included in the review. According to the findings of the meta-analysis, proprioceptive training was similarly effective with resistance training in SEBT and FAAM measures. Compared with resistance exercise, proprioceptive training demonstrated some benefits in CAIT scores (weighted mean difference [WMD] = −2.21, 95% CI = −4.05–0.36), but these intervention results were not clinically significant (MDC, MCID score >3 points).

Conclusion

Low-quality evidence from studies showed that neither of the interventions was superior on the SEBT or the FAAM scores in individuals with CAI because no clinically significant differences were found. More high-quality studies comparing the two interventions are needed to draw firm conclusions.

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
Physical Therapy in Sport
Physical Therapy in Sport 医学-康复医学
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
8.30%
发文量
125
审稿时长
39 days
期刊介绍: Physical Therapy in Sport is an international peer-reviewed journal that provides a forum for the publication of research and clinical practice material relevant to the healthcare professions involved in sports and exercise medicine, and rehabilitation. The journal publishes material that is indispensable for day-to-day practice and continuing professional development. Physical Therapy in Sport covers topics dealing with the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of injuries, as well as more general areas of sports and exercise medicine and related sports science. The journal publishes original research, case studies, reviews, masterclasses, papers on clinical approaches, and book reviews, as well as occasional reports from conferences. Papers are double-blind peer-reviewed by our international advisory board and other international experts, and submissions from a broad range of disciplines are actively encouraged.
×
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