Abstract
ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare the immediate effects of mobilization with movement (MWM) to a sham technique in patients with shoulder impingement syndrome. MethodsA randomized controlled trial was performed. Forty-two patients (mean ± SD age, 55 ± 9 years; 81% female) satisfied eligibility criteria, agreed to participate, and were randomized into an MWM group (n = 21) or sham manual contact (n = 21). The primary outcome measures including pain intensity, pain during active range of motion, and maximal active range of motion were assessed by a clinician blinded to group allocation. Outcomes were captured at baseline and after 2 weeks of MWM treatment or sham intervention. The primary analysis was the group×time interaction. ResultsThe 2×2 analysis of variance revealed a significant group×time interaction for pain intensity during shoulder flexion (F = 7.054; P = .011), pain-free shoulder flexion (F = 32.853; P < .001), maximum shoulder flexion (F = 18.791; P < .01), and shoulder external rotation (F = 7.950; P < .01) in favor of the MWM group. No other significant differences were found. ConclusionsPatients with shoulder impingement syndrome who received 4 sessions of MWM exhibited significantly better outcomes for pain during shoulder flexion, pain-free range of shoulder flexion, maximal shoulder flexion, and maximal external rotation than those patients who were in the sham group.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Similar Papers
More From: Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.