Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
Comparison of rehabilitation methods in the treatment of patellar tendinitis |
Wilson JK, Sevier TL, Helfst R, Honing EW, Thomann A |
Journal of Sport Rehabilitation 2000;9(4):304-314 |
clinical trial |
3/10 [Eligibility criteria: No; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: No; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: No; Point estimates and variability: No. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed* |
OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of 2 rehabilitation protocols on patellar tendinitis subjects. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, blinded, controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Outpatient rehabilitation clinic. SUBJECTS: Randomized into 2 rehabilitation groupsNtraditional (n = 10) and ASTM AdvantEDGE (n = 10). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical data and self-reported questionnaires collected at 0, 6, and 12 weeks. RESULTS: On completion of the 6th week, 100% of the ASTM AdvantEDGE group and 60% of the traditional group had resolved. The unresolved subjects were crossed over to the ASTM AdvantEDGE for additional therapy. At the end of the additional therapy, 50% of the crossover subjects had resolved. The ASTM AdvantEDGE group's clinical outcomes and weekly journals indicated a statistically significant (p = 0.04) improvement in subjective pain and functional-impairment ratings. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that ASTM AdvantEDGE resulted in improved clinical outcomes in treating patellar tendinitis.
|