Repository logo
 

Faculty of Health Sciences

Permanent URI for this communityhttp://ir-dev.dut.ac.za/handle/10321/11

Browse

Subject: search.filters.subject.Manual therapy

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A systematic review on the effectiveness of manipulation and mobilisation in the treatment of osteoarthritis
    (2023-05-31) Khamissa, Ahmed; Korporaal, Charmaine Maria
    Osteoarthritis (OA) is an increasing condition globally as the population ages and the number of elderly increases. However, there is a lack of relevant evidence-based guidelines for manual therapy in the treatment of OA especially involving OA of the spine, wrist, temporomandibular joint (TMJ), and the glenohumeral joint (GHJ). A systematic review organises and critiques literature in a more concise form for practitioners. This study aimed to briefly provide practitioners the evidence available on the effectiveness of manipulation and mobilisation on OA. Methods: A systematic review of available literature was performed using keywords including “manipulation”; “mobilization”; “manual therapy” and “osteoarthritis”; “spondylosis”; “degenerative joint disease”; “degenerative disc disease”. The database searches were through CINAHL, DUT summons, Google scholar, Pubmed and Scopus. Following a screening using inclusion criteria, 20 articles were chosen for review. Each of the studies were than reviewed by three reviewers using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, the PEDRO scale, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) scale for case series and the JBI scale for case reports. These scales evaluated the methodological rigour (internal validity) of the chosen articles. In addition, the external validity was determined through a critique of each article. The internal and external validity formed the basis for decisions on the level of evidence provided in support of manual therapy. Results: Of those chosen articles, 13 provided evidence of treatment programmes and could not contribute to evidence specific to mobilisation and manipulation. In contrast, four articles assessed the efficacy of mobilisation, one study assessed the efficacy of manipulation, and two studies assessed the efficacy of neural mobilisation. There was moderate evidence in support of mobilisation on thumb carpometacarpal (CMC) OA, but only limited evidence in support of its use on cervical spine OA and no evidence in support of its use on lumbar spine OA, GHJ OA and TMJ OA. Manipulation was suggested to have moderate to limited evidence in support of its use on lumbar spine OA, but no evidence for cervical spine OA. Neural mobilisation was suggested to have limited evidence in support of its use for treating thumb CMC OA. Conclusion: It was evident in this systematic review that there is limited evidence for mobilisation, manipulation and neural mobilisation. Further research is required to expand on the limited areas, as well as strengthen the current evidence for clinical use.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A systematic review of non-invasive manual therapy in the management of rheumatoid arthritis patients
    (2022-05-13) Sclanders, Kyle Donald; Korporaal, Charmaine Maria
    Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a common, chronic, and progressive autoimmune condition manifesting in a polyarticular pattern, with an agnogenic pathophysiology. The progressive effect on physical function (e.g., pain, quality of life, funcaitonal impairment and disability) and the side effects of pharmaceutical interventions, have led to patients seeking adjunctive therapy. Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapy, is thought to reduce pain, increase range of motion, and improve quality of life. Yet, the evidence base for CAM therapies is vague. This systematic review of studies relating to non-invasive manual therapy (vis. exercise, manipulation, mobilisation, and massage), determined the level of evidence available for their use, and provided a summation of the available evidence to support evidence-based clinical practice. Finally, the study provides recommendations for further investigations. Method: This mixed methods systematic review complying with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol and Cochrane Collaboration guidelines, required an electronic literature search (viz: Google Scholar and DUT Summons) using key terms including rheumatoid arthritis and variable combination one or more of the following: treatment, management, chiropractic, osteopathy, physiotherapy, physical therapy, massage, mobilization, manipulation, joint oscillation, and exercise. This along with hand search strategies and reviewer input produced 65 articles that were incorporated into the review (40 RCTs. 15 nRCTs, and 10 Cases). All selected articles were available in English in electronic format and represented RCTs, nRCTs and CR/CS (not limited to peer reviewed studies) and reflected interventions applied to adult, human subjects. The articles were reviewed by 13 reviewers, using as appropriate the PEDro, Newcastle-Ottawa or Liddle scales, to evaluate the methodological rigour (internal validity) of the studies, while qualitatively contextualizing these outcomes (external validity) to determine the impact of bias on the reported clinical outcomes. Thereafter an analysis of evidence per modality was completed utilising published grading systems. Results: The above evaluations and aggregated evidence available was then determined for the modalities. It was found that there is limited evidence available for manipulation, mobilisation, massage, and exercise in the treatment of the RA patient. The notable exceptions were the use of aerobic exercise with acetaminophen; exercise as part of an intervention programme in the treatment of the hands; and mixed exercise programme to improve bone mineral density and attaining muscular strength gains. Conclusion: Thus, excluding the exceptions, the reviewed interventions should be used cautiously in practice and patients should not be provided with expectations that are not confidently supported by available literature. The evidence suggests that for the most part, intervention by means of manipulation, mobilisation, soft tissue manipulation and massage, along with exercise, requires further research efforts to provide sufficient high-quality evidence for the practitioner to implement in clinical practice with confidence
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A systematic review of the non-invasive therapeutic modalities in the treatment of myofascial pain and dysfunction
    (2015-03-09) Roopchand, Adelle Kemlall; Korporaal, Charmaine Maria; Harpham, Graeme John
    Background: Myofascial Pain and Dysfunction (MPD) is a diagnosis commonly encountered by practitioners, hence, there are several treatment approaches employed by various practicing physicians. Practitioners are required to perform evidence-based protocols on patients; however, such intervention becomes increasingly difficult with the increasing volume of evidence available with regards to treatment of MPD. A systematic review provides a well-structured, critical analysis of the available protocols, and as such, provides practitioners with an evidence-based summary of the available modalities and the effectiveness of these modalities. Thus, the aim of the study was to systematically review and evaluate the literature to determine the effects of various non-invasive modalities on MPD. Objectives: Studies investigating various non-invasive modalities were identified, evaluated against the inclusion criteria and then reviewed against PEDro criteria to present current available evidence regarding their effectiveness as a source of treatment for MPD. Methods: A literature search was conducted, based on key terms including: active and latent myofascial trigger points, manual therapy, manipulation, acupressure, massage, muscle stretching, ultrasound, transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation, electric stimulation therapy, magnetic field therapy, and exercise therapy. Databases searched were: PubMed, EBSCOhost, Medline, CINAL, Proquest, Health Source, Sport Discus, Science Direct, Springer Link, Google Scholar and Summons. The articles were screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, after which a secondary hand and reference searches were performed. Thereafter, the articles were reviewed by four independent reviewers and the researcher. The PEDro Scale was used to determine methodological rigor of the included studies. The results were then analysed and ranked. Results: Following the screening process during data collection for this study, a total of 25 studies were identified and included. The review and ranking of these studies revealed a moderate level of evidence present for the effectiveness of Topical Agents. A limited level of evidence was noted for TENS, Ischemic Compression, Ultrasound, Laser and Other Modalities. Approximately 25% of the reviewed studies involved combination therapies; hence their outcomes cannot be applied to the effectiveness of individual modalities. Conclusion: Upon comparison of the quality of evidence available for the various types of modalities present for the treatment of MPD, it was noted that Topical Agents were supported by a stronger level of evidence than TENS, Ischeamic Compression, Ultrasound, Laser and Other Modalities. However, due to a lack of strong overall evidence for any of these modalities it has been concluded that more research is required to establish which modality is in fact the most effective.