Background: Dry needling (DN) has been established as an effective treatment for myofascial pain, however, there are no studies thus far investigating the benefit to movement and motor control. Purpose: The primary purpose of this study was to compare differences in a series of outcomes between dry needling, dry needling and stretching, and stretching only in a sample of healthy males. A secondary purpose was to compare change over time. Design: Blinded, randomized controlled trial Methods: Thirty healthy male subjects were randomly assigned to one of three intervention groups: DN, stretching, or combination DN +stretching. Subjects in the DN group and DN+stretch group received DN to a palpated trigger point (TrP) in the triceps surae to elicit local twitch response. Subjects in the stretch group and DN+stretch group were instructed in a home stretching program for gastrocnemius and soleus muscles. All groups were tested for dorsiflexion range of motion and performed functional tasks (overhead deep squat, and Y-Balance test, Lower Quarter) prior to intervention, directly after intervention, and four days post intervention. Group comparisons were performed using a repeated measure Analysis of Variance and a partial eta squared calculation for effect size. For all measures a p-value of <0.05 was used to determine significance. Cohen's criteria were used to categorize strength of effect size. Results: There were no statistically significant differences among groups for range of motion nor functional measures, with the exception of the deep squat. Proportionally, the DN group improved significantly in deep squat performance (p<0.01) compared to the other groups. Time oriented improvements were seen for the YBT posterior-lateral reach (p=0.02) only. Between groups effect sizes ranged from 0.02 (small) to 0.17 (large). Conclusions: Including DN did not markedly influence range of motion nor functional assessment measures, excluding those seen during the overhead deep squat. Effect measures suggest the lack of significant findings may be an issue of statistical power.
Background Despite similar outcomes for surgery and conservative care, the number of surgeries to treat rotator cuff related shoulder pain has increased. Interventions designed to enhance treatment expectations for conservative care have been shown to improve patient expectations, but no studies have yet explored whether such interventions influence patient decisions to pursue surgery. The purpose of this randomized clinical trial is to examine the effect of an intervention designed to improve expectations of conservative care on the decision to have surgery. Methods We will test the effectiveness of the Patient Engagement, Education, and Restructuring of Cognitions (PEERC) intervention which is intended to change expectations regarding conservative care. The PEERC intervention will be evaluated in a randomized, pragmatic “add-on” trial, to better understand the effect the intervention has on outcomes. Ninety-four (94) participants with rotator cuff related shoulder pain referred for physical therapy will be randomized to receive either impairment-based care or impairment-based care plus PEERC. Both groups will receive impairment-based conservative treatment created by compiling the evidence associated with established, effective interventions. Participants assigned to the impairment-based care plus PEERC condition will also receive the PEERC intervention. This intervention, informed by principles of cognitive behavioral therapy, involves three components: (1) strategies to enhance engagement, (2) education and (3) cognitive restructuring and behavioral activation. Outcomes will be assessed at multiple points between enrolment and six months after discharge. The primary outcome is patient reported decision to have surgery and the secondary outcomes are pain, function, expectations and satisfaction with conservative care. Discussion Rotator cuff related shoulder pain is highly prevalent, and because conservative and surgical treatments have similar outcomes, an intervention that changes expectations about conservative care could alter patient reports of their decision to have surgery and ultimately could lead to lower healthcare costs and decreased risk of surgical complications. Trial registration This study is registered as NCT03353272 at ClincialTrials.gov.
Background Risk factors for prolonged recovery after concussion have been well researched, but specific objective clinical examination findings have not. This study examined whether clinical examination results could predict delayed recovery (DR) in individuals with concussion diagnosis. A secondary aim explored the influence of early examination on individual prognosis. Methods The study was a retrospective, observational cohort design that included 163 individuals seen at a concussion clinic who were followed longitudinally until cleared for sports activity. Cognitive, visual, balance, vestibular, and cervical clinical testing and symptom assessment were performed at initial evaluation. DR was calculated by taking the median value associated with time to clearance for activity. Bivariate logistic regression analysis was calculated to determine odds ratios (and 95% confidence intervals) for the odds of DR with presence or absence of each clinical finding. Multivariate analyses were used to define the best predictors of DR. Results 80 of 163 individuals were considered delayed in their clearance to activity. Cognitive impairments (OR = 2.72; 95%CI = 1.40, 5.28), visual exam findings (OR = 2.98; 95%CI = 1.31, 6.80), and vestibular exam findings (OR = 4.28; 95%CI = 2.18, 8.43) all increased the odds of a DR. Multivariate modeling retained cognitive symptoms and clinical examination-vestibular testing as predictors of delayed recovery. Time to examination after injury was a mediator for DR. Conclusions The clinical examination provides value in identifying individuals who are likely to exhibit a delayed clearance. In particular, vestibular impairments identified clinically at initial evaluation and cognitive symptoms were associated with increased odds of a DR to return to activity. Our data support that early implementation of a standardized clinical examination can help to identify individuals who may be more at risk of prolonged recovery from concussion.
Background: The choice of outcome success thresholds may influence clinical management, pay-for-performance, and assessment of value-based care. Objective: To evaluate outcomes success thresholds in older adults using two different methods: 1) Minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) of the Quick-DASH and 2) Dichotomization of the Quick-DASH based on low disability rating at discharge Design: An observational design (retrospective database study). Setting: Dataset of 1109 patients with shoulder disorders. Participants: 297 older adults patients who were diagnosed with rotator cuff related shoulder disorders and were managed through physical therapy treatment. Main outcome measures: We categorized and calculated how many patients met 8.0 and 16.0 point changes on the Quick-DASH. To evaluate outcomes success thresholds using dichotomization, patients who discharge score of ≤20 on the Quick-DASH were considered positive responders with successful outcomes. Results: The percentage of positive responders who met the MCID thresholds for the Quick-DASH were 63.3% using MCID of 8.0 points, 39.7% using the MCID of 16.0 points, and 46.12% who met discharge score of ≤ 20 on the Quick-DASH. 39.0% met both MCID of 8.0 points and discharge score of ≤ 20 on the Quick-DASH. Only 28% met both MCID of 16.0 points and discharge score of = 20 on the Quick-DASH.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.