OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of Dowling's and Mulligan's manual therapy techniques on pain and disability in the management of lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy (LDHR). METHODS: A total of 40 individuals with LDHR were randomly allocated into 2 groups, 20 participants each in PINS and SMWLM groups. Each participant was assessed at baseline, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks postintervention. The primary outcomes measured were pain (visual analog scale) and disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire). Secondary variables were quality of life (Short-Form 36 Health Survey), sciatica bothersomeness (Sciatica Bothersomeness Index), sciatica frequency (Sciatica Frequency Index), and general perception of recovery (Global Rating of Change Scale). Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compute within-group and between-groups interactions. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in the baseline characteristics of participants in both groups. The results indicate that there were significant time effects for all outcomes in the study (P < .001) within each group. However, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups on any outcome variable (P > .05). CONCLUSION: The findings indicate that there was no difference in pain or disability between the 2 manual therapy techniques in the management of LDHR.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of Dowling's and Mulligan's manual therapy techniques on pain and disability in the management of lumbar disc herniation with radiculopathy (LDHR). METHODS: A total of 40 individuals with LDHR were randomly allocated into 2 groups, 20 participants each in PINS and SMWLM groups. Each participant was assessed at baseline, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks postintervention. The primary outcomes measured were pain (visual analog scale) and disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire). Secondary variables were quality of life (Short-Form 36 Health Survey), sciatica bothersomeness (Sciatica Bothersomeness Index), sciatica frequency (Sciatica Frequency Index), and general perception of recovery (Global Rating of Change Scale). Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compute within-group and between-groups interactions. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in the baseline characteristics of participants in both groups. The results indicate that there were significant time effects for all outcomes in the study (P < .001) within each group. However, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups on any outcome variable (P > .05). CONCLUSION: The findings indicate that there was no difference in pain or disability between the 2 manual therapy techniques in the management of LDHR.
Authors: Jan Hartvigsen; Mark J Hancock; Alice Kongsted; Quinette Louw; Manuela L Ferreira; Stéphane Genevay; Damian Hoy; Jaro Karppinen; Glenn Pransky; Joachim Sieper; Rob J Smeets; Martin Underwood Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-03-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Willem J J Assendelft; Sally C Morton; Emily I Yu; Marika J Suttorp; Paul G Shekelle Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-06-03 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: James N Weinstein; Jon D Lurie; Tor D Tosteson; Anna N A Tosteson; Emily A Blood; William A Abdu; Harry Herkowitz; Alan Hilibrand; Todd Albert; Jeffrey Fischgrund Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2008-12-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Anne M Boonstra; Henrica R Schiphorst Preuper; Michiel F Reneman; Jitze B Posthumus; Roy E Stewart Journal: Int J Rehabil Res Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 1.479
Authors: Wilco C Peul; Hans C van Houwelingen; Wilbert B van den Hout; Ronald Brand; Just A H Eekhof; Joseph T J Tans; Ralph T W M Thomeer; Bart W Koes Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-05-31 Impact factor: 91.245