Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Efficacy of dynamic muscular stabilization techniques (DMST) over conventional techniques in rehabilitation of chronic low back pain [with consumer summary]
Kumar S, Sharma VP, Negi MPS
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 2009 Dec;23(9):2651-2659
clinical trial
4/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: No; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

Low back pain (LBP) is a common health problems. Although it is multifactorial, its treatment varies considerably, including medication, physical therapy modalities, and exercise therapy, and each have several interventions. Despite their effectiveness, their head-to-head comparisons are limited. This study was aimed at 1 such comparison. A total of 30 hockey players, 18 to 28 years of age, with subacute or chronic LBP were randomly assigned equally in 2 groups. One group was treated with conventional treatment -- a combination of 2 electrotherapies (ultrasound and short-wave diathermy) and 1 exercise therapy (lumbar strengthening exercises) -- and the other group was treated with dynamic muscular stabilization techniques (DMST), an active approach of stabilizing training. The results showed that both the treatments are effective in the management of LBP, but DMST was found to be more effective than conventional treatment. The walking, stand ups, climbing, and pain improved 4.7, 2.0, 1.4, and 2.1 times, respectively, more with DMST than with conventional treatment. With time (days), walking, stand ups, climbing, and pain improved (correlation) significantly (p < 0.01) higher in DMST (r = 0.83 to 0.92) than in conventional treatment (r = 0.40 to 0.75), and their rate of improvement (regression beta coefficients) were also significantly (p < 0.01) higher in DMST (beta = -0.16 to 0.73) than in conventional treatment (beta = -0.07 to 0.15). Subjects matching were perfect (p < 0.01) and test-retest reliability of all dependent variables was significantly (p < 0.01) high (intraclass correlation coefficient approximately 1). No major adverse effects were recorded in any of the patients in either group. This study concluded that for early recovery, DMST is more suitable than conventional treatment.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help