PainScience.com Sensible advice for aches, pains & injuries
 
 
bibliography * The PainScience Bibliography contains plain language summaries of thousands of scientific papers and others sources, like a specialized blog. This page is about a single scientific paper in the bibliography, Pope 1994.

A prospective randomized three-week trial of spinal manipulation, transcutaneous muscle stimulation, massage and corset in the treatment of subacute low back pain

updated
Tags: massage, manual therapy, treatment

original abstractAbstracts here may not perfectly match originals, for a variety of technical and practical reasons. Some abstacts are truncated for my purposes here, if they are particularly long-winded and unhelpful. I occasionally add clarifying notes. And I make some minor corrections.

STUDY DESIGN: A randomized prospective trial of manipulation, massage, corset and transcutaneous muscle stimulation (TMS) was conducted in patients with subacute low back pain.

OBJECTIVES: The authors determined the relative efficacy of chiropractic treatment to massage, corset, and TMS.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although all of these treatments are used for subacute low back pain treatment, there have been few comparative trials using objective outcome criteria. Patients were enrolled for a period of 3 weeks. They were evaluated once a week by questionnaires, visual analog scale, range of motion, maximum voluntary extension effort, straight leg raising and Biering-Sorensen fatigue test. The dropout rate was highest in the muscle stimulation and corset groups and lowest in the manipulation group. Rates of full compliance did not differ significantly across treatments. A measure of patient confidence was greatest in the manipulation group.

RESULTS: After 3 weeks, the manipulation group scored the greatest improvements in flexion and pain while the massage group had the best extension effort and fatigue time, and the muscle stimulation group the best extension.

CONCLUSION: None of the changes in physical outcome measures (range of motion, fatigue, strength or pain) were significantly different between any of the groups.

related content

One article on PainScience.com cites Pope 1994 as a source:


This page is part of the PainScience BIBLIOGRAPHY, which contains plain language summaries of thousands of scientific papers & others sources. It’s like a highly specialized blog. A few highlights: