Literature DB >> 17045094

Variability of force magnitude and force duration in manual and instrument-based manipulation techniques.

Gregory N Kawchuk1, Narasimha G Prasad, Randall C McLeod, Tasha Liddle, Tianye Li, Qiaohao Zhu.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to compare the variation of manipulative forces produced by instruments and a manual technique.
METHODS: Four operators (2 experts and 2 novices) used 4 different mechanical instruments to apply force to a uniaxial load cell. A different group of 2 expert and 2 novice operators used a traditional manual technique to apply force to a sensor mat. Two primary outcome variables were obtained from each sensor system: peak-to-peak force magnitude (N) and peak-to-peak force duration (millisecond). Multiple analyses were performed to determine the absolute differences and variation in each variable.
RESULTS: Force-producing instrumentation exhibited less variation in absolute force and force duration compared to manual techniques. However, the same instrument in the hands of different operators often produced significantly different values of absolute force and force duration. Although absolute values of force magnitude generally differed between operators, intraoperator variation was equal for instruments and the manual technique. Conversely, for force duration, significant differences in interoperator variability were observed for the manual technique and for one of the instruments.
CONCLUSIONS: Force-producing instruments reduce absolute variation in force magnitude and duration. However, this reduction does not eliminate significant differences in absolute force parameters observed to occur between some operators using the same instrument. Given these observations, claims of instrument superiority that do not account for interoperator variability should be considered with caution.

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17045094     DOI: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2006.08.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Manipulative Physiol Ther        ISSN: 0161-4754            Impact factor:   1.437


  10 in total

1.  Establishing force and speed training targets for lumbar spine high-velocity, low-amplitude chiropractic adjustments.

Authors:  Edward F Owens; Ronald S Hosek; Stephanie G B Sullivan; Brent S Russell; Linda E Mullin; Lydia L Dever
Journal:  J Chiropr Educ       Date:  2015-11-24

2.  Characteristics of Paraspinal Muscle Spindle Response to Mechanically Assisted Spinal Manipulation: A Preliminary Report.

Authors:  William R Reed; Joel G Pickar; Randall S Sozio; Michael A K Liebschner; Joshua W Little; Maruti R Gudavalli
Journal:  J Manipulative Physiol Ther       Date:  2017-06-17       Impact factor: 1.437

3.  The effect of spinal manipulation impulse duration on spine neuromechanical responses.

Authors:  Isabelle Pagé; François Nougarou; Claude Dugas; Martin Descarreaux
Journal:  J Can Chiropr Assoc       Date:  2014-06

Review 4.  Spinal manipulative therapy and somatosensory activation.

Authors:  J G Pickar; P S Bolton
Journal:  J Electromyogr Kinesiol       Date:  2012-02-19       Impact factor: 2.368

5.  Short term modulation of trunk neuromuscular responses following spinal manipulation: a control group study.

Authors:  Marie-Pierre Harvey; Martin Descarreaux
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2013-03-13       Impact factor: 2.362

6.  Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy for a geriatric patient with low back pain and comorbidities of cancer, compression fractures, and osteoporosis.

Authors:  Jan A Roberts; Tristy M Wolfe
Journal:  J Chiropr Med       Date:  2012-03

7.  Changes in adjustment force, speed, and direction factors in chiropractic students after 10 weeks undergoing standard technique training.

Authors:  Edward F Owens; Brent S Russell; Ronald S Hosek; Stephanie G B Sullivan; Lydia L Dever; Linda Mullin
Journal:  J Chiropr Educ       Date:  2017-08-02

8.  Effect of manual versus mechanically assisted manipulations of the thoracic spine in neck pain patients: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Anke Langenfeld; B Kim Humphreys; Rob A de Bie; Jaap Swanenburg
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2015-05-27       Impact factor: 2.279

9.  Glucose Metabolic Changes in the Brain and Muscles of Patients with Nonspecific Neck Pain Treated by Spinal Manipulation Therapy: A [18F]FDG PET Study.

Authors:  Akie Inami; Takeshi Ogura; Shoichi Watanuki; Md Mehedi Masud; Katsuhiko Shibuya; Masayasu Miyake; Rin Matsuda; Kotaro Hiraoka; Masatoshi Itoh; Arlan W Fuhr; Kazuhiko Yanai; Manabu Tashiro
Journal:  Evid Based Complement Alternat Med       Date:  2017-01-12       Impact factor: 2.629

10.  Neural Response During a Mechanically Assisted Spinal Manipulation in an Animal Model: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  William R Reed; Michael A K Liebschner; Randall S Sozio; Joel G Pickar; Maruti R Gudavalli
Journal:  J Nov Physiother Phys Rehabil       Date:  2015-04-06
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.