4.7 Article

Real versus Sham Manual Therapy in Addition to Therapeutic Exercise in the Treatment of Non-Specific Shoulder Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 15, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11154395

关键词

shoulder; rotator cuff; musculoskeletal manipulations; exercise

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of manual therapy in combination with a therapeutic exercise program for non-specific shoulder pain. The results showed that both manual therapy and sham therapy led to similar improvements in pain and shoulder range of motion.
The aim of this study was to evaluate if manual therapy added to a therapeutic exercise program produced greater improvements than a sham manual therapy added to same exercise program in patients with non-specific shoulder pain. This was an evaluator-blinded randomized controlled trial. Forty-five subjects were randomly allocated into one of three groups: manual therapy (glenohumeral mobilization technique and rib-cage technique); thoracic sham manual therapy (glenohumeral mobilization technique and rib-cage sham technique); or sham manual therapy (sham glenohumeral mobilization technique and rib-cage sham technique). All groups also received a therapeutic exercise program. Pain intensity, disability and pain-free active shoulder range of motion were measured post treatment and at 4-week and 12-week follow-ups. Mixed-model analyses of variance and post hoc pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni corrections were constructed for the analysis of the outcome measures. All groups reported improved pain intensity, disability and pain-free active shoulder range of motion. However, there were no between-group differences in these outcome measures. The addition of the manual therapy techniques applied in the present study to a therapeutic exercise protocol did not seem to add benefits to the management of subjects with non-specific shoulder pain.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据