Literature DB >> 22984234

Precompetition manipulative treatment and performance among Virginia Tech athletes during 2 consecutive football seasons: a preliminary, retrospective report.

Per Gunnar Brolinson1, Michael Smolka, Mark Rogers, Suporn Sukpraprut, Michael W Goforth, Greg Tilley, Keith P Doolan.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: One of the goals of providing manipulative treatment such as osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is to restore maximal, pain-free movement of the musculoskeletal system and to enhance neuromuscular function. Anecdotally, some athletes have reported that their athletic performance improves after manipulative treatment.
OBJECTIVE: To develop preliminary data to gain more understanding about the association between precompetition manipulative treatments provided to Division I football players and their athletic performance during each game for 2 consecutive football seasons.
METHODS: The study design was a retrospective cohort study. Participants were football athletes at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech). Board-certified osteopathic physicians who were trained in osteopathic manipulative medicine and sports medicine performed OMT and determined the type of OMT techniques used and the spinal segments treated. One chiropractor provided chiropractic manipulative therapy. Prior to each game, the athletes who elected to receive precompetition manipulative treatment (ie, OMT or chiropractic manipulative therapy) underwent a focused physical examination and received manipulative treatment on the basis of clinical findings. After each game, the coaching staff "graded" the players by using a standard coaching algorithm. Offensive players received a percentile score (0 to 100) and defensive players received a numeric score (> 30 was considered "very good").
RESULTS: A total of 1976 manipulative treatments were provided to 115 football players in 2 consecutive football seasons. Sixty-two offensive players received 985 manipulative treatments, and 53 defensive players received 991 manipulative treatments. Treatments were applied to the affected regions of the spine: cervical, thoracic, lumbar, and sacral sections. Mean (standard deviation) performance scores were 67.8% (22.8%) and 11.1 (9.9) points among offensive and defensive players, respectively. The correlation coefficients between the numbers of the manipulative treatments and the performance scores were 0.107 (P = .407) among the offensive players and 0.218 (P=.117) among the defensive players.
CONCLUSION: Precompetition manipulative treatment was positively associated with improved performance among both offensive and defensive Virginia Tech football players. Although the associations between these 2 factors were relatively small and not statistically significant, we found positive correlations in performance of the offensive and defensive players.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22984234

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Osteopath Assoc        ISSN: 0098-6151


  6 in total

1.  Effect of lumbar spine manipulation on asymptomatic cyclist sprint performance and hip flexibility.

Authors:  Eric Olson; Michael Bodziony; John Ward; Jesse Coats; Bradley Koby; Doug Goehry
Journal:  J Chiropr Med       Date:  2014-12

2.  Immediate effects of lower cervical spine manipulation on handgrip strength and free-throw accuracy of asymptomatic basketball players: a pilot study.

Authors:  Kelley M Humphries; John Ward; Jesse Coats; Jeannique Nobert; William Amonette; Stephen Dyess
Journal:  J Chiropr Med       Date:  2013-09

3.  Preliminary Feasibility Study to Measure the Immediate Changes of Bilateral Asymmetry After Lumbar Spinal Manipulative Therapy in Asymptomatic Athletes.

Authors:  Bruno Alvarenga; Marcelo Botelho; Jerusa Lara; Filipa João; António Veloso
Journal:  J Chiropr Med       Date:  2020-08-21

4.  The effects of a single session of spinal manipulation on strength and cortical drive in athletes.

Authors:  Thomas Lykke Christiansen; Imran Khan Niazi; Kelly Holt; Rasmus Wiberg Nedergaard; Jens Duehr; Kathryn Allen; Paul Marshall; Kemal S Türker; Jan Hartvigsen; Heidi Haavik
Journal:  Eur J Appl Physiol       Date:  2018-01-11       Impact factor: 3.078

5.  Influence of Dynamic Neuromuscular Stabilization Approach on Maximum Kayak Paddling Force.

Authors:  Pavel Davidek; Ross Andel; Alena Kobesova
Journal:  J Hum Kinet       Date:  2018-03-23       Impact factor: 2.193

6.  Collegiate Athletes' Perceptions of Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment.

Authors:  Samuel Ofei-Dodoo; Julia L Black; Michael A Kirkover; Colin B Lisenby; Andrew S T Porter; Paul M Cleland
Journal:  Kans J Med       Date:  2020-06-25
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.