scholarly journals Immediate effect of manual therapy techniques on the limitation of ankle dorsiflexion: a randomized, controlled, blind clinical trial protocol

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Matheus de Castro Silva ◽  
Rodrigo de Marche Baldon ◽  
Carolina Lins ◽  
Gustavo Martins de Andrade ◽  
Gustavo Barros Braga de Castro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Functional Performance ◽  
Human Mobility ◽  
Physical Activities ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Joint Mobilization ◽  
Functional Activities ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
And Performance

Abstract Background The range of motion (RoM) of dorsiflexion (DF) plays an important role in human mobility, such as absorption of body weight during gait deceleration, jump landings, balance, and eccentric movements. This limitation can generate potentially damaging movements. This way, evaluating techniques for DF RoM increase could help improve immediate performance in such functional activities. This being the case, the objective of this study will be to verify the sum effect of different joint mobilization techniques for DF gain in persons practicing physical activities and its relationship with functional performance and balance. Methodology This is a randomized, controlled, and blind clinical trial. Fifty-four (54) volunteers will be recruited, aged between 18 and 40 years, who have DF limitations. After checking eligibility criteria, the participants will be submitted to a physiotherapeutic evaluation. A researcher, blind to evaluation and treatment, will perform the randomization of patients in groups: (A) Joint Mobilization - Mulligan Concept and (B) Joint Mobilization - Maitland Method. All volunteers will be submitted by two blind evaluators for randomization and treatment groups. They will realize the initial evaluation (A0), immediately after techniques (A1) and after 3–4 days of the technique application (A2). A different researcher, blind for evaluation, will perform the treatment, according to the randomization group. Discussion It is already known that DF RoM limitation can lead to compensatory and potentially damaging lower limb movements and that joint mobilizations are effective to treatment. However, there is no consensus whether the application of these techniques would also improve aspects of dynamic postural balance and performance in individuals practicing physical activity, and whether the sum of two joint mobilization techniques could enhance this effect. Trial registration Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBEC) RBR-93xv9t. Registered on 09 April 2020.

scholarly journals Immediate Effect of Manual Therapy Techniques on the Limitation of Ankle Dorsiflexion: A Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind Clinical Trial Protocol

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matheus de Castro Silva ◽  
Rodrigo de Marche Baldon ◽  
Carolina Lins ◽  
Gustavo Martins de Andrade ◽  
Gustavo Barros Braga de Castro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Functional Performance ◽  
Human Mobility ◽  
Kinetic Chain ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Balance Test ◽  
Joint Mobilization ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Double Blind Clinical Trial

Abstract Background: The range of motion (RoM) of dorsiflexion (DF) plays an important role in human mobility, such as absorption of body weight during gait deceleration, jump landings, balance and eccentric movements. This limitation can generate potentially damaging movements. This way, evaluating techniques for DF RoM increase could help improve immediate performance in such functional activities. This being the case, the objective of this study will be to verify the sum effect of different joint mobilization techniques for DF gain in persons practicing physical activities and its relationship with functional performance and balance. Methodology: This is a randomized, controlled and double-blind clinical trial. Sixty-four (64) volunteers will be recruited, aged between 18 and 40 years, who have DF limitation. After checking eligibility criteria, the participants will be submitted to a physiotherapeutic evaluation. Volunteers will be evaluated as to a DF for open kinetic chain (OKC) and closed kinetic chain (CKC), and also submitted to functional Y Balance Test under a force platform and Triple Hop Test, by a blind examiner. Another researcher, also blind, will perform the randomization of patients in groups: (A) Joint Mobilization - Mulligan Concept and (B) Joint Mobilization - Maitland Method. After the randomization, volunteers will be submitted to initial evaluation (A0) and, after 2-3 days, they will be submitted to application of the techniques, which will be randomized, and reassessed immediately (A1). After 3-4 days of the application of the techniques, the re-evaluation will be performed (A2). Discussion: It is already known that DF RoM limitation can lead to compensatory and potentially damaging lower limb movements and that joint mobilizations are effective to treatment. However, there is no consensus whether the application of these techniques would also improve aspects of dynamic postural balance and performance in individuals practicing physical activity, and whether the sum of two joint mobilization techniques could enhance this effect. Trial registration: RBR-93xv9t, Registered 09 April 2020, https://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-93xv9t.

scholarly journals The Acute Effects of Foam Rolling and Dynamic Stretching on Athletic Performance: A Critically Appraised Topic

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Bethany L. Anderson ◽  
Rod A. Harter ◽  
James L. Farnsworth
Keyword(s):  
Athletic Performance ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Static Stretching ◽  
Acute Effects ◽  
Warm Up ◽  
Dynamic Stretching ◽  
Foam Rolling ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
And Performance

Clinical Scenario: Dynamic stretching and foam rolling are commonly used by athletes to reduce injury and enhance recovery, thereby improving athletic performance. In contrast to dynamic stretching, little research has been conducted on the acute effects of foam rolling as part of the preexercise warm-up routine. Previously, when researchers implemented foam rolling with static stretching as a warm-up, some found that foam rolling slightly improved flexibility and performance outcomes. More recent research has shown that dynamic stretching is favorable to static stretching when used as a warm-up strategy. Therefore, adding foam rolling to dynamic stretching is hypothesized to create more significant improvements in flexibility and performance compared with adding foam rolling to static stretching. Focused Clinical Question: In active individuals, does foam rolling in addition to dynamic stretching lead to enhanced performance compared with dynamic stretching alone? Summary of Key Findings: Four randomized controlled trials were included. Two studies concluded that the addition of foam rolling to dynamic stretching increased vertical jump height more than dynamic stretching alone, while 2 studies found no difference between these treatment groups. Two studies concluded that the addition of foam rolling increased agility performance compared with dynamic stretching alone, while one study found no difference between treatment groups and one study did not measure agility. All 4 studies reviewed concluded that foam rolling did not improve flexibility more than dynamic stretching alone. Clinical Bottom Line: Foam rolling in conjunction with dynamic stretching may further improve an athlete’s agility and power output; however, little improvement has been observed with foam rolling in regard to athlete flexibility when compared with completing dynamic stretching programs alone. Strength of Recommendation: Inconsistent findings from 4 randomized controlled trials suggest there is Grade C evidence to support the inclusion of foam rolling in a dynamic warm-up.

Adjuvant capecitabine in locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma: A multicenter randomized controlled phase III trial.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6005-6005
Author(s):  
Jingjing Miao ◽  
Lin Wang ◽  
Sze Huey Tan ◽  
Jin-Gao Li ◽  
Junlin Yi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma ◽  
Primary Tumor ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Neck Node ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
To Receive

6005 Background: We conducted a multicenter, randomized controlled phase III clinical trial (NCT02143388) to investigate the efficacy and toxicity of adjuvant capecitabine (AC) in addition to concurrent cisplatin and radiotherapy (CCRT) compared to CCRT alone in high-risk locoregionally advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma (LANPC) patients. Methods: Eligibility criteria included AJCC/UICC 7th ed TNM stage III-IVb and one of the following features: T3-4N2 or T1-4N3 or pre-treatment plasma EBV DNA concentration of >20,000 copy/ml or gross primary tumor volume (GTVnx) of >30 cm3 or a maximum standard uptake value (SUVmax) of >10.0 by 18FDG PET-CT within the primary tumor or multiple neck node metastases, with any larger than 4 cm. All patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive CCRT (3-weekly cisplatin at 100 mg/m2 for 2-3 cycles) followed by AC (1000 mg/m2 bi-daily for 14 days every 21-day cycle for 8 cycles), or CCRT alone. The prescribed radiation doses were 68-72 Gy/30-32 fractions to the PTVnx, 60-68 Gy/30-32 fractions to PTVnd, 60-64Gy/30-32 fractions to PTVhigh-risk, 54-58Gy/30-32 fractions to PTVlow-risk. Primary end point was failure-free survival (FFS). Results: Between Mar 2014 to Jul 2018, 180 patients were recruited (90 patients in CCRT+AC arm and 90 in CCRT alone arm). All patients completed RT and ≥2 cycles of concurrent cisplatin in both treatment arms (cumulative dose intensities for cisplatin were 200 mg/m2 in both arms). 85 (94.4%) patients went on to receive AC, with 71 (78.9%) patients completing 8 cycles; 19 (22.4%) patients had dose reduction of AC. With a median follow-up of 44.8 mo, the 3-y FFS was significantly superior in the CCRT+AC arm than the CCRT arm for the intention-to-treat cohort (87.7% vs 73.3%; HR: 0.52 [95% CI: 0.29-0.77], P = 0.037). 3-year overall, distant metastasis-free and locoregional relapse-free survival were 92.6% vs 88.9% (HR [95% CI]: 0.66 [0.28-1.59]), 88.8% vs. 81.1% (HR: 0.67 [0.33-1.33]) and 91.5% vs 80.0% (HR: 0.50 [0.25-1.00]), respectively. Incidences of G3-4 acute toxicities were 57.8% (52 of 90) in CCRT+AC arm and 51.1% (46 of 90) in CCRT alone arm, with a higher incidence of hand foot syndrome (3.5% vs 0%), xerostomia (11.1% vs 3.3%), mucositis (23.3% vs 16.7%), and anemia (5.6% vs 2.2%) in the CCRT+AC arm. G3-4 late toxicities occurred in 13.3% (12 of 90) and 9.0% (8 of 89), respectively. Conclusions: The addition of capecitabine to CCRT conferred a superior disease control than CCRT alone in high-risk LANPC. Survivals in ITT and PP set. Clinical trial information: NCT02143388. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals TELERA—Asynchronous TELEmedicine for Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: Study Protocol for a Prospective, Multi-Center, Randomized Controlled Trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johanna Mucke ◽  
Johannes Knitza ◽  
Felix Muehlensiepen ◽  
Manuel Grahammer ◽  
Ramona Stenzel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Clinical Trial Registration ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Medical App ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Remote Care

Innovative strategies are needed to adequately assess and monitor disease activity of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in times of scarce appointments. The aim of the TELERA study is to evaluate the feasibility and performance of asynchronous telemedicine visits based on patient-generated data and patient's drug history. RA patients use a medical app, ABATON, that captures the results of a self-performed quick CRP-test, joint-count, and electronic patient-reported outcomes in between visits. This is a prospective, multi-center, randomized controlled trial performed in four German university centers. The estimated sample size is 120 patients. The main outcome is the agreement of rheumatologists' treatment decisions based on asynchronous telemedicine patient-generated data with traditional in-person rheumatology clinic-based decisions and with patient suggestions. The TELERA trial will provide evidence regarding the implementation of remote care in rheumatology.Clinical Trial Registration: This clinical trial was registered at German Registry for Clinical Trials (DRKS). http://www.drks.de/DRKS00016350, identifier: DRKS00024928.

scholarly journals A comparison of therapies using Eyetronix Flicker Glass and standard adhesive patches in children with anisometropic amblyopia: A randomized controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seung Hyun Min ◽  
Shijia Chen ◽  
Jinling Xu ◽  
Bingzhen Chen ◽  
Hui Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Visual Acuity ◽  
Contrast Sensitivity ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Trial Registry ◽  
Clinical Trial Registry ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Anisometropic Amblyopia ◽  
Randomized Controlled

AbstractPurposeRecently, Eyetronix Flicker Glass (EFG) was introduced as a novel treatment for amblyopia. We conducted a randomized clinical trial to compare the efficacy of the therapies using the Eyetronix Flicker Glass and standard adhesive patches.MethodsWe tested 31 children (aged 4-13 years) with anisometropic amblyopia. They were assigned into one of the two treatment groups and were treated for 12 weeks. The first group was treated with the Eyetronix Flicker Glass for one hour per day (Flicker Group), and the latter with standard patches (Patching Group) for two hours per day. We considered best-corrected visual acuity (BVCA) of the amblyopic eye after 12 weeks of treatment as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were BVCA of the amblyopic at other timepoints of measurement (before the treatment, 3 and 6 weeks) as well as contrast sensitivity of the amblyopic eye, stereopsis and fusion range at all timepoints.ResultsVisual acuity in the amblyopic eye was significantly improved in both treatment groups at week 12 relative to baseline. The magnitude of improvement was similar. Contrast sensitivity of the amblyopic eye at 3, 6 and 12 cpd was large but not so at 18 cpd for both groups. Stereopsis did not improvement in both groups. However, fusion range significantly improved in the Flicker Group at week 12 relative to baseline.ConclusionAfter 12 weeks, EFG therapy improves amblyopic eye’s visual acuity, its contrast sensitivity and fusion range of the patients. EFG therapy improves both monocular and binocular functions.Clinical trial registry numberChiCTR2000034436 from the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry

scholarly journals Immediate effects of joint mobilization compared to sham and control intervention for pain intensity and disability in chronic low back pain patients: randomized controlled clinical trial

Revista Dor ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando Augusto Gonçalves Tavares ◽  
Thais Cristina Chaves ◽  
Ednéia Denise Silva ◽  
Gabriela Dionísio Guerreiro ◽  
Joysse Ferreira Gonçalves ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Joint Mobilization ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Control Intervention ◽  
And Control ◽  
Pain Patients
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document