Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
| The effects of doming of the diaphragm in subjects with short-hamstring syndrome: a randomized controlled trial |
| Valenza MC, Cabrera-Martos I, Torres-Sanchez I, Garces-Garcia A, Mateos-Toset S, Valenza-Demet G |
| Journal of Sport Rehabilitation 2015;24(4):342-348 |
| clinical trial |
| 7/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; 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* |
|
CONTEXT: Taking into account the complex structure of the diaphragm and its important role in the postural chain, the authors were prompted to check the effects of a diaphragm technique on hamstring flexibility. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of the doming-of-the-diaphragm (DD) technique on hamstrings flexibility and spine mobility. DESIGN: Randomized placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: University laboratory. PATIENTS: Sixty young adults with short-hamstring syndrome were included in this randomized clinical trial using a between-groups design. INTERVENTION: The sample was randomly allocated to a placebo group (n = 30) or an intervention group (n = 30). Duration, position, and therapist were the same for both treatments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Hamstring flexibility was assessed using the forward-flexion-distance (FFD) and popliteal-angle test (PAT). Spinal motion was evaluated using the modified Schober test and cervical range of movement. RESULTS: Two-way ANOVA afforded pre- to postintervention statistically significant differences (p < 0.001) in the intervention group compared with the placebo group for hamstring flexibility measured by the FFD (mean change 4.59 +/- 5.66 intervention group versus 0.71 +/- 2.41 placebo group) and the PAT (mean change intervention group 6.81 +/- 8.52 versus placebo group 0.57 +/- 4.41). Significant differences (p < 0.05) were also found in the modified Schober test (mean change intervention group -1.34 +/- 3.95 versus placebo group 1.02 +/- 3.05) and cervical range of movement. Significant between-groups differences (p < 0.05) were also found in all the variables measured. CONCLUSIONS: The DD technique provides sustained improvement in hamstring flexibility and spine mobility.
|