Effectiveness of Fire Cupping (Hijamah Nariya) versus dry warm Fomentation (Takmeed Yabis) in Chronic Neck Pain - A Randomized Control Trial

Tamanna Nazli
{"title":"Effectiveness of Fire Cupping (Hijamah Nariya) versus dry warm Fomentation (Takmeed Yabis) in Chronic Neck Pain - A Randomized Control Trial","authors":"Tamanna Nazli","doi":"10.24321/2319.9113.201904","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: The primary objective was to compare the effectiveness of fire cupping versus dry warm fomentation in reducing pain and tenderness in patients with Chronic Neck Pain (CNP) and the secondary objective was to compare the effectiveness of both interventions in improving Cervical Range of Motion (CROM) and Quality of Life (QoL).\nMethods: In this randomized controlled trial 70 patients with CNP were block randomized into two groups; fire Cupping Group (CG) or dry warm Fomentation Group (FG). Response to treatment was assessed using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), CROM and Neck Disability Index (NDI). Impact of disease on patient’s QoL was assessed using Short Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire (SF-36).\nResult: On intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, the maximum reduction in pain was achieved in CG than in FG, the mean VAS scores in CG leads to much earlier reduction of pain as compared to FG (p=0.001). The mean CROM in both the groups increased from baseline, though the increase was higher in the CG. A low NDI score signifies less disability, the median percentage NDI score in CG was 12 (0-24) which is lower than FG 18 (0-46.7) and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (p=0.0012). In the SF-36, subscale bodily pain, the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (p=0.0452).\nConclusion: Both the regimens are effective in reducing pain and increasing CROM while, earlier reduction in pain occur significantly greater extent with CG.\nHow to cite this article: \nRaheem A, Nazli T, Saeed A, Alvi R, Kalaivani M. Effectiveness of Fire Cupping (Hijamah Nariya) versus dry warm Fomentation (Takmeed Yabis) in Chronic Neck Pain - A Randomized Control Trial. J Integ Comm Health 2019; 8(1): 21-32.\nDOI: https://doi.org/10.24321/2319.9113.201904","PeriodicalId":269901,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Integrated Community Health","volume":"122 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Integrated Community Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24321/2319.9113.201904","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Objectives: The primary objective was to compare the effectiveness of fire cupping versus dry warm fomentation in reducing pain and tenderness in patients with Chronic Neck Pain (CNP) and the secondary objective was to compare the effectiveness of both interventions in improving Cervical Range of Motion (CROM) and Quality of Life (QoL). Methods: In this randomized controlled trial 70 patients with CNP were block randomized into two groups; fire Cupping Group (CG) or dry warm Fomentation Group (FG). Response to treatment was assessed using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), CROM and Neck Disability Index (NDI). Impact of disease on patient’s QoL was assessed using Short Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire (SF-36). Result: On intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis, the maximum reduction in pain was achieved in CG than in FG, the mean VAS scores in CG leads to much earlier reduction of pain as compared to FG (p=0.001). The mean CROM in both the groups increased from baseline, though the increase was higher in the CG. A low NDI score signifies less disability, the median percentage NDI score in CG was 12 (0-24) which is lower than FG 18 (0-46.7) and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (p=0.0012). In the SF-36, subscale bodily pain, the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (p=0.0452). Conclusion: Both the regimens are effective in reducing pain and increasing CROM while, earlier reduction in pain occur significantly greater extent with CG. How to cite this article: Raheem A, Nazli T, Saeed A, Alvi R, Kalaivani M. Effectiveness of Fire Cupping (Hijamah Nariya) versus dry warm Fomentation (Takmeed Yabis) in Chronic Neck Pain - A Randomized Control Trial. J Integ Comm Health 2019; 8(1): 21-32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24321/2319.9113.201904
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
火罐(Hijamah Nariya)与干热罐(Takmeed Yabis)治疗慢性颈部疼痛的疗效-一项随机对照试验
目的:主要目的是比较火罐和干热法在减轻慢性颈痛(CNP)患者疼痛和压痛方面的有效性,次要目的是比较两种干预措施在改善颈椎活动度(CROM)和生活质量(QoL)方面的有效性。方法:在本随机对照试验中,70例CNP患者随机分为两组;火罐组(CG)或干热发酵组(FG)。采用视觉模拟评分(VAS)、CROM和颈部残疾指数(NDI)评估治疗效果。采用SF-36健康问卷(Short Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire, SF-36)评估疾病对患者生活质量的影响。结果:意向治疗(ITT)分析显示,与FG相比,CG组最大程度地减轻了疼痛,CG组的平均VAS评分比FG更早地减轻了疼痛(p=0.001)。两组的平均CROM均较基线增加,但CG的增加幅度更高。NDI评分越低,残疾程度越低,CG组NDI评分中位数百分比为12(0-24),低于FG组18(0-46.7),两组差异有统计学意义(p=0.0012)。在SF-36身体疼痛亚量表中,两组间差异有统计学意义(p=0.0452)。结论:两种方案均能有效减轻疼痛和增加CROM,而CG组疼痛的早期减轻程度明显更大。Raheem A, Nazli T, Saeed A, Alvi R, Kalaivani M.火罐(Hijamah Nariya)与干温罐(Takmeed Yabis)治疗慢性颈部疼痛的疗效-一项随机对照试验。2019;8(1): 21-32。DOI: https://doi.org/10.24321/2319.9113.201904
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Assessment of Medication Adherence among Diabetic and Hypertensive Patients Visiting an Urban Health Centre Affiliated with a Tertiary Care Hospital during Lockdown Imposed due to COVID-19 Pandemic Fuzzification of Intelligence Quotient (IQ) for the Determination of Individual Temperament (Mizaj-e-Shakhsi) Unani Concept of Fasd (Venesection): A Review Management and Treatment of Gastritis (War’m-e-Meda) with Herbal Remedies: An Overview A Demographic Study of Chronic Bronchitis: An Observational Study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1