A partir de cette page vous pouvez :
Retourner au premier écran avec les dernières notices... |
Détail de l'auteur
Auteur Mark Halliday
Documents disponibles écrits par cet auteur
Ajouter le résultat dans votre panier Affiner la rechercheA Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the McKenzie Method to Motor Control Exercises in People With Chronic Low Back Pain and a Directional Preference / Mark Halliday in Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, vol. 46, 7 (Juillet 2016)
[article]
in Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy > vol. 46, 7 (Juillet 2016) . - 514-522
Titre : A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the McKenzie Method to Motor Control Exercises in People With Chronic Low Back Pain and a Directional Preference Type de document : article de périodique Auteurs : Mark Halliday ; [et al.] Année de publication : 2016 Article en page(s) : 514-522 Langues : Anglais (eng) Descripteurs (mots clés) : [Thésaurus Mesh]Diagnostic par imagerie Résumé : Study Design Randomized clinical trial.
Background
Motor control exercises are believed to improve coordination of the trunk muscles. It is unclear whether increases in trunk muscle thickness can be facilitated by approaches such as the McKenzie method. Furthermore, it is unclear which approach may have superior clinical outcomes.
Objectives
The primary aim was to compare the effects of the McKenzie method and motor control exercises on trunk muscle recruitment in people with chronic low back pain classified with a directional preference. The secondary aim was to conduct a between-group comparison of outcomes for pain, function, and global perceived effect.
Methods
Seventy people with chronic low back pain who demonstrated a directional preference using the McKenzie assessment were randomized to receive 12 treatments over 8 weeks with the McKenzie method or with motor control approaches. All outcomes were collected at baseline and at 8-week follow-up by blinded assessors.
Results
No significant between-group difference was found for trunk muscle thickness of the transversus abdominis (−5.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −15.2%, 3.7%), obliquus internus (−0.7%; 95% CI: −6.6%, 5.2%), and obliquus externus (1.2%; 95% CI: −4.3%, 6.8%). Perceived recovery was slightly superior in the McKenzie group (−0.8; 95% CI: −1.5, −0.1) on a −5 to +5 scale. No significant between-group differences were found for pain or function (P = .99 and P = .26, respectively).
Conclusion
We found no significant effect of treatment group for trunk muscle thickness. Participants reported a slightly greater sense of perceived recovery with the McKenzie method than with the motor control approach.
Level of Evidence
Therapy, level 1b-.Permalink : https://bibliotheque.helb-prigogine.be/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id= [article]Exemplaires
Cote Support Localisation Section Disponibilité J Périodique Erasme - périodiques Périodiques Disponible Treatment Effect Sizes of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy for Pain and Disability in Patients With Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review / Mark Halliday in Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, vol. 49, 4 (Avril 2019)
[article]
in Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy > vol. 49, 4 (Avril 2019) . - p. 219-229
Titre : Treatment Effect Sizes of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy for Pain and Disability in Patients With Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review Type de document : article de périodique Auteurs : Mark Halliday ; [et al.], Auteur Année de publication : 2019 Article en page(s) : p. 219-229 Langues : Anglais (eng) Descripteurs (mots clés) : [Thésaurus Mesh]Lombalgie
[Thésaurus Mesh]Revue de la littérature
[Thésaurus HELB]:Paramédical:Préférence motriceRésumé : Background
Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT) is a treatment-based classification system founded on 3 core principles: classification into diagnostic syndromes, classification-based intervention, and appropriate application of force. Many randomized controlled trials have investigated the efficacy of MDT for low back pain; however, results have varied. The inconsistent delivery of MDT across trials may explain the different findings.
Objectives
To compare treatment effect sizes for pain or disability between trials that delivered MDT consistent with the core principles of the approach and trials that met some or none of these principles.
Methods
In this systematic review, databases were searched from inception to June 2018 for studies that delivered MDT compared to nonpharmacological, conservative control interventions in patients with low back pain and reported outcomes of pain or disability. Studies were classified as “adherent” (meeting the core principles of MDT) or “nonadherent” (using some or none of the principles of MDT). Data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers. Meta-regression procedures were used to analyze the effect of delivery mode on clinical outcomes, adjusting for covariates of symptom duration (less than or greater than 3 months) and control intervention (minimal or active).
Results
Studies classified as adherent to the MDT approach showed greater reductions in pain and disability of 15.0 (95% confidence interval: 7.3, 22.7) and 11.7 (95% confidence interval: 5.4, 18.0) points, respectively, on a 100-point scale compared to nonadherent trials.
Conclusion
This review provides preliminary evidence that treatment effects of MDT are greater when the core principles are followed.
Level of Evidence Therapy, level 1aPermalink : https://bibliotheque.helb-prigogine.be/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id= [article]Exemplaires
Cote Support Localisation Section Disponibilité J Périodique Erasme - périodiques Périodiques Disponible