| Literature DB >> 30643532 |
Huihao Wang1,2, Enyu Jiang1,2, Kuan Wang3,4, Zhen Deng1,2, Hongsheng Zhan1,2, Zhibi Shen1,2, Wenxin Niu3,4.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the immediate and short term effectiveness of Shi's Daoyin therapy (DT) rather than the Melbourne Protocol (MP) in terms of pain, mobility, and isometric strength of cervical muscles in nonacute nonspecific neck pain patients.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30643532 PMCID: PMC6311268 DOI: 10.1155/2018/4983891
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Procedure of Shi's Daoyin therapy. ((a) Upward movement of the shoulders; (b) backward movement of the shoulders; (c) cervical flexion between 35°~45°; (d) cervical extension between 35°~45°; (e) cervical left lateral bending about 45°; (f) cervical right lateral bending about 45°; (g) cervical left rotation between 60°~80°; and (h) cervical right rotation between 60°~80°).
Figure 2Flowchart of subjects and follow-up evaluation. (NDI, Neck Disability Index; ROM, cervical range of motion; MVIF, maximal voluntary isometric force; NPRS, Numeric Pain Rating Scale).
Baseline characteristics of subjects.
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 57 | 57 | |
|
| 32.79 (7.53) | 34.40 (7.09) | 0.241 |
|
| |||
| Female | 30 | 33 | 0.572 |
| Male | 27 | 24 | |
|
| |||
| ≤3 months | 22 | 19 | 0.840 |
| 3~6 months | 8 | 9 | |
| 6~12 months | 27 | 29 | |
|
| |||
| M (Q1, Q3) | 12(8, 20) | 13(6, 20.5) | 0.744 |
|
| |||
| Flexion and extension | |||
| M (Q1, Q3) | 109.60 (99.10, 116.70) | 106.15 (87.34, 118.95) | 0.308 |
| Left and right bending | 92.19 | 86.68 | |
| M (Q1, Q3) | (81.47, 98.55) | (77.95, 98.12) | 0.217 |
| Left and right rotation | 133.70 | 132.49 | |
| M(Q1, Q3) | (112.00, 147.52) | (113.72, 143.42) | 0.371 |
|
| |||
| (0-10) M(Q1, Q3) | 3 (2, 4) | 3 (3, 4.25) | 0.144 |
|
| |||
| Flexion and extension | |||
| M (Q1, Q3) | 17.85 (12.58, 24.68) | 18.90 (13.40, 23.68) | 0.520 |
| Left and right bending | |||
| M (Q1, Q3) | 14.10 (9.35, 19.50) | 14.00 (10.40, 19.60) | 0.503 |
Notes: Data that did not conform to a normal distribution was described by M (Q1, Q3). Shi's DT group, Shi's Daoyin therapy group; MP group, Melbourne Protocol (MP) with the Multi-Cervical Unit (MCU); NDI, Neck Disability Index; ROM, range of motion; NPRS, Numerical Pain Rating Scale; MVIF, maximal voluntary isometric force.
Comparison of NDI between and within groups M(Q1, Q3).
| group | Before exercise (%) | After exercise (%) | 3-week follow-up (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shi's DT | 12(8,20) | 6(3.25,12)△ | 2(0,4)△, |
| MP | 13(6,20.5) | 6(2,10)△ | 4(2,8)△, |
|
| |||
|
| -0.327 | -0.922 | -1.742 |
|
| 0.744 | 0.357 | 0.082 |
Note: The data was used in a K-S test for statistical analysis. Observation time points: (1) before intervention; (2) after intervention; and (3) 3-week follow-up. △, P < 0.05 with Wilcoxon signed rank test compared with data before exercise in the same group. ∗, P < 0.05 with Wilcoxon signed rank test compared with data after exercise in the same group.
Figure 3Comparison of neck range of motion (ROM) in (a) flexion-extension; (b) lateral bending; and (c) axial rotation between and within groups. Note: the data were used in a K-S test for statistical analysis. Observation time points: (1) before intervention; (2) after intervention; and (3) 3-week follow-up (F/U). ∗, P < 0.05 with Wilcoxon signed rank test compared with data from 3 points in the same group; #, P < 0.05 with Mann–Whitney U test compared between groups at the same time.
Figure 4Comparison of numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) between and within groups. Note: the data were used in a K-S test for statistical analysis. Observation time points: (1) before intervention; (2) after intervention; and (3) 3-week follow-up (F/U). ∗, P < 0.05 with Wilcoxon signed rank test compared with data from 3 points in the same group; #, P < 0.05 with Mann–Whitney U test compared between groups at the same time.
Figure 5Comparison of maximal voluntary isometric force (MVIF) in (a) flexion plus extension and (b) lateral bending between and within groups. Note: the data were used in a K-S test for statistical analysis. Observation time points: (1) before intervention; (2) after intervention; and (3) 3-week follow-up (F/U). ∗, P < 0.05 with Wilcoxon signed rank test compared with data from 3 points in the same group; #, P < 0.05 with Mann–Whitney U test compared between groups at the same time.