Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
Detailed Search Results
| Immediate effects of thoracic spine thrust manipulation on neurodynamic mobility [with consumer summary] |
| Hartstein AJ, Lievre AJ, Grimes JK, Hale SA |
| Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 2018 May;41(4):332-341 |
| clinical trial |
| 6/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; 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* |
|
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the immediate effects of thoracic spine thrust manipulation (TSM) on the upper limb provocation test (ULPT) and seated slump test (SST) in individuals with identified neurodynamic mobility impairments. A secondary aim was to determine if correlation existed between the perception of effect and improvements in neurodynamic mobility following a thrust manipulation compared with mobilization. METHODS: A pretest-posttest experimental design randomized 48 adults into 2 groups: TSM or mobilization. Participants with identified neurodynamic mobility impairment as assessed with the ULPT or SST received a pre-assigned intervention (TSM, n = 64 limbs; mobilization, n = 66 limbs). Perception of effect was assessed to determine its influence on outcome. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to examine the effects of intervention, and Fisher's exact test and independent t tests were used to determine the influence of perception. RESULTS: Both the ULPT (p < 0.001) and SST (p < 0.001) revealed improvements at posttest regardless of intervention. The ULPT effect sizes for TSM (d = 0.70) and mobilization (d = 0.69) groups were medium. For the SST, the effect size for the TSM group (d = 0.53) was medium, whereas that for the mobilization group (d = 0.26) was small. Participants in the mobilization group with positive perception had significantly greater (p < 0.05) mean neurodynamic mobility changes than those with a negative perception. CONCLUSIONS: Neurodynamic mobility impairment improved regardless of intervention. The magnitude of change was greater in the ULPT than SST. Although both interventions appeared to yield similar outcomes, individuals who received mobilization and expressed a positive perception of effect exhibited significantly greater changes in neurodynamic mobility than those without a positive perception.
|
The database was last updated on 5 May 2025 (this includes records added or amended since 7 April 2025). The next update is planned for 2 June 2025. The total number of records on the database is 65,032.