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

Detailed Search Results

Relative therapeutic efficacy of vertebral manipulation and conventional treatment in back pain management
Nwuga VCB
American Journal of Physical Medicine 1982 Dec;61(6):273-278
clinical trial
4/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: No; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: No; 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*

A study was conducted to compare the relative efficacy of conventional (heat, pelvic tilt exercises, postural education and lifting instructions) and manipulation therapy in back pain management. Twenty-five females were in the conventional therapy group (CTG) and 26 females in the manipulation therapy group (MTG). Range of motion of total flexion and extension, total side-flexion and total rotation of the lumbar spine and the straight-leg-raising test were used as criteria to determine efficacy of treatment. The results showed that while the mean treatment time for CTG subjects was 160 minutes (SD 7.9) that for MTG patients was 121.2 (SD 10.2) with a significant difference p < 0.001. There were significant differences between the two groups with regards to post-treatment differences in total flexion and extension p < 0.01; total side flexion p < 0.05; and total rotation p < 0.05 in favour of the MTG subjects. There was also significant difference in post-treatment straight-leg-raising values between the two groups p < 0.05 in favour of the MTG group. It was concluded that manipulation therapy as shown by this study was superior to the conventional method in the treatment of the type of patient described.

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