3.8 Article

Effects of Kinesio Taping on peak torque and muscle activity in women with low back pain presenting fears and beliefs related to physical activity

期刊

JOURNAL OF BODYWORK AND MOVEMENT THERAPIES
卷 24, 期 4, 页码 361-366

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2020.06.012

关键词

Physical therapy; Kinesiotape; Muscle strength; Electromyography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: KT is an elastic taping that has been widely used as an adjunct to conventional physiotherapy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of Kinesio Taping on peak torque, muscle fatigue index and muscle activity of erector spinae in women with low back pain presenting fears and beliefs related to physical activity. Methods: This is a pilot controlled clinical trial. The subjects were divided into two groups according to the Fear Beliefs Avoidance Questionnaire (FABQ): Group A (Patients with no fears and/or beliefs related to physical activity) and Group B (Patients with fears and/or beliefs related to physical activity). The Kinesio Taping was applied in I in order to facilitate erector spinae. An isokinetic dynamometer and a surface electromyography were used to evaluate the outcomes. The evaluations were performed without and with the KT. Results: Sample of 16 women equally divided into two groups with similar characteristics regarding age, weight, height, body mass index, functional capacity and pain levels in the evaluations without and with Kinesio Taping. There were within-groups and between-groups differences in the peak torque (p = .05), with better results in the Group B. No differences were found on muscle fatigue index and muscle activity in both groups (p > .05). Conclusion: It was concluded that Kinesio Taping had immediate effects in the peak torque of the erector spinae of women with nonspecific chronic low back pain presenting fears and beliefs related to physical activity. It is suggested that such results occurred by placebo effect. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

3.8
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