Kashmala Khan, Ashfaq Ahmad, Muhammad Ali Mohseni Bandpei, Muhammad Kashif
{"title":"干针疗法和脊柱手法治疗与单纯脊柱手法治疗对非特异性慢性腰背痛患者功能障碍和耐力的影响比较：一项实验研究。","authors":"Kashmala Khan, Ashfaq Ahmad, Muhammad Ali Mohseni Bandpei, Muhammad Kashif","doi":"10.1097/MD.0000000000039734","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Low back pain (LBP) is a global musculoskeletal ailment. Over the past few years, dry needling (DN) has garnered interest from both physical therapists and patients. Physical therapy commonly employs spinal manipulation to alleviate persistent LBP and other musculoskeletal disorders. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of spinal manipulation alone and in combination with DN on functional disability and endurance in individuals suffering from chronic nonspecific LBP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients of both genders who had chronic nonspecific LBP and who had not received physical therapy within the last 3 months were included in this single-blind, randomized controlled trial using purposive sampling. All participants were randomly assigned to either the experimental (SMT + DN) or control (SMT alone) group using computer-generated random numbers. The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 23.0. For between-group comparisons, the Mann-Whitney U test was used. A P-value < .05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis of the difference between the 2 groups revealed that the mean ± standard deviation (SD) for the SMT alone group was 16.09 ± 3.963 at baseline and 12.66 ± 3.801 at 8 weeks, whereas for the DN + ST group, it was 13.67 ± 3.904 at baseline and 10.92 ± 3.534 at 8 weeks, with a P-value of .003. Thus, the RMDQ score improved gradually in both groups, and the mean endurance score reported for the ST group was 2.5 to 4.5, while that reported for the DN + ST group was 3.1 to 5.1.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results of this study showed that both therapies effectively reduced LBP. When comparing the effects of spinal manipulation alone to those of spinal manipulation combined with DN, the latter showed significantly greater benefits.</p>","PeriodicalId":18549,"journal":{"name":"Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the effects of dry needling and spinal manipulative therapy versus spinal manipulative therapy alone on functional disability and endurance in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: An experimental study.\",\"authors\":\"Kashmala Khan, Ashfaq Ahmad, Muhammad Ali Mohseni Bandpei, Muhammad Kashif\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MD.0000000000039734\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Low back pain (LBP) is a global musculoskeletal ailment. Over the past few years, dry needling (DN) has garnered interest from both physical therapists and patients. Physical therapy commonly employs spinal manipulation to alleviate persistent LBP and other musculoskeletal disorders. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of spinal manipulation alone and in combination with DN on functional disability and endurance in individuals suffering from chronic nonspecific LBP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients of both genders who had chronic nonspecific LBP and who had not received physical therapy within the last 3 months were included in this single-blind, randomized controlled trial using purposive sampling. All participants were randomly assigned to either the experimental (SMT + DN) or control (SMT alone) group using computer-generated random numbers. The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 23.0. For between-group comparisons, the Mann-Whitney U test was used. A P-value < .05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis of the difference between the 2 groups revealed that the mean ± standard deviation (SD) for the SMT alone group was 16.09 ± 3.963 at baseline and 12.66 ± 3.801 at 8 weeks, whereas for the DN + ST group, it was 13.67 ± 3.904 at baseline and 10.92 ± 3.534 at 8 weeks, with a P-value of .003. Thus, the RMDQ score improved gradually in both groups, and the mean endurance score reported for the ST group was 2.5 to 4.5, while that reported for the DN + ST group was 3.1 to 5.1.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The results of this study showed that both therapies effectively reduced LBP. When comparing the effects of spinal manipulation alone to those of spinal manipulation combined with DN, the latter showed significantly greater benefits.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18549,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000039734\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000039734","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of the effects of dry needling and spinal manipulative therapy versus spinal manipulative therapy alone on functional disability and endurance in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain: An experimental study.
Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a global musculoskeletal ailment. Over the past few years, dry needling (DN) has garnered interest from both physical therapists and patients. Physical therapy commonly employs spinal manipulation to alleviate persistent LBP and other musculoskeletal disorders. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of spinal manipulation alone and in combination with DN on functional disability and endurance in individuals suffering from chronic nonspecific LBP.
Methods: Patients of both genders who had chronic nonspecific LBP and who had not received physical therapy within the last 3 months were included in this single-blind, randomized controlled trial using purposive sampling. All participants were randomly assigned to either the experimental (SMT + DN) or control (SMT alone) group using computer-generated random numbers. The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 23.0. For between-group comparisons, the Mann-Whitney U test was used. A P-value < .05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.
Results: The analysis of the difference between the 2 groups revealed that the mean ± standard deviation (SD) for the SMT alone group was 16.09 ± 3.963 at baseline and 12.66 ± 3.801 at 8 weeks, whereas for the DN + ST group, it was 13.67 ± 3.904 at baseline and 10.92 ± 3.534 at 8 weeks, with a P-value of .003. Thus, the RMDQ score improved gradually in both groups, and the mean endurance score reported for the ST group was 2.5 to 4.5, while that reported for the DN + ST group was 3.1 to 5.1.
Conclusion: The results of this study showed that both therapies effectively reduced LBP. When comparing the effects of spinal manipulation alone to those of spinal manipulation combined with DN, the latter showed significantly greater benefits.
期刊介绍：
Medicine is now a fully open access journal, providing authors with a distinctive new service offering continuous publication of original research across a broad spectrum of medical scientific disciplines and sub-specialties.
As an open access title, Medicine will continue to provide authors with an established, trusted platform for the publication of their work. To ensure the ongoing quality of Medicine’s content, the peer-review process will only accept content that is scientifically, technically and ethically sound, and in compliance with standard reporting guidelines.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
