2018
DOI: 10.1177/0269215518778321
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effectiveness of mobilization with movement (Mulligan concept techniques) on low back pain: a systematic review

Abstract: Current evidence is insufficient in supporting the benefits of Mulligan techniques on pain, disability, and range of motion in low back pain patients.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
21
0
3

Year Published

2018
2018
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
1
21
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…; Pourahmadi et al. ). Comparison: Studies were included in which the participants were adult individuals without symptoms of LBP, who had never undergone lumbar spine surgery. Studies were not included in this review when the unaffected side was only considered as a control. Outcomes: Macroscopic morphological changes in hip muscles included the assessment of CSA, FCSA, fat infiltration, fat deposit, muscle density, and muscle volume.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 97%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…; Pourahmadi et al. ). Comparison: Studies were included in which the participants were adult individuals without symptoms of LBP, who had never undergone lumbar spine surgery. Studies were not included in this review when the unaffected side was only considered as a control. Outcomes: Macroscopic morphological changes in hip muscles included the assessment of CSA, FCSA, fat infiltration, fat deposit, muscle density, and muscle volume.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…The level of inter‐rater agreement was measured with Cohen's kappa coefficient using a method developed for comparing the level of agreement with categorical data along with their respective 95% confidence intervals (κ 0–0.20 = poor agreement; 0.21–0.40 = fair agreement; 0.41–0.60 = moderate agreement; 0.61–0.80 = good agreement; and 0.81–1 = very good agreement; Pourahmadi et al. ). Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, the control group (0.67 cm) was not clinically important. The effects of SNAGs on VAS score are already well-known [30].…”
Section: Painmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The level of interrater agreement was measured using Cohen kappa coefficient, with a method developed for comparing the level of agreement with categorical data along with their respective 95% confidence intervals (κ = 0-0.20, poor agreement; 0.21-0.40, fair agreement; 0.41-0.60, moderate agreement; 0.61-0.80, good agreement; and 0.81-1, very good agreement). 18 A third reviewer (H.H.) was available to resolve any disagreements that could not be resolved by consensus of the 2 reviewers.…”
Section: Quality Assessmentmentioning
confidence: 99%