2015
DOI: 10.1007/s00484-015-0997-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Does addition of ‘mud-pack and hot pool treatment’ to patient education make a difference in fibromyalgia patients? A randomized controlled single blind study

Abstract: The aim of this randomized controlled single-blind study is to explore whether addition of mud-pack and hot pool treatments to patient education make a significant difference in short and mild term outcomes of the patients with fibromyalgia. Seventy women with fibromyalgia syndrome were randomly assigned to either balneotherapy with mud-pack and hot pool treatments (35) or control (35) groups. After randomization, five patients from balneotherapy group and five patients from control group were dropped out from… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
28
0
18

Year Published

2016
2016
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8
1
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(46 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
28
0
18
Order By: Relevance
“…This mud has similar properties to water [19] and matures over time improving their properties of granulometry, specific heat, caloric retentivity, inertia time, relaxation time, hardness, adhesiveness, cohesion, and springiness [20, 21]. Mud treatments have been used for wounds produced by trauma.…”
Section: Hydrogen Sulphide Chemistrymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This mud has similar properties to water [19] and matures over time improving their properties of granulometry, specific heat, caloric retentivity, inertia time, relaxation time, hardness, adhesiveness, cohesion, and springiness [20, 21]. Mud treatments have been used for wounds produced by trauma.…”
Section: Hydrogen Sulphide Chemistrymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bagdatli et al [8] performed a two-day education programme to the patients in a study they observed that the education was significantly effective in three-month follow-up period.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Only 1 of the 10 studies included had low ROBs [14]. Another 4 were designated at unspecified risk (unclear allocation and high risk publication bias: [15] and [16]; unclear outcome assessment blinding and double blind: [17]; unclear random sequence generation and high risk publication bias: [18]; unclear outcome assessment and high risk publication bias [19]). The remaining 5 studies were at high ROBs [6,[20][21][22], since more than two ambiguous judgments in the key areas existed.…”
Section: Robsmentioning
confidence: 99%