Kang Yeh-Hyun, Ha Won-Bae, Geum Ji-Hye, Woo Hyeonjun, Han Yun-Hee, Park Shin-Hyeok, Lee Jung-Han
Chuna Manual Medicine Research Group, College of Korean Medicine, Won-Kwang University, 460 Iksan-daero, Iksan 54538, Republic of Korea.
Department of Korean Medicine Rehabilitation, College of Korean Medicine, Won-Kwang University, 895 Muwang-ro, Iksan 54538, Republic of Korea.
Healthcare (Basel). 2023 Apr 11;11(8):1089. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11081089.
Since 2005, there have been no systematic reviews on the effects of multiple manual therapies, including muscle energy technique (MET), on the hamstrings. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to provide clinical evidence for the effectiveness of the MET on hamstring flexibility. We queried 10 electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, KISS, NDSL, KMBASE, KISTI, RISS, Dbpia, and OASIS) up to the end of March 2022. This study only included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of MET for the hamstring. The literature was organized using Endnote. Literature screening and data extraction were conducted by two researchers independently. The methodological quality of the included RCTs was evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 1.0, and the meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. In total, 949 patients from 19 RCTs were selected according to the inclusion criteria. During active knee extension tests, the efficacy between MET and other manipulations did not significantly differ. For sit and reach tests, MET groups had higher flexibility compared to stretching (MD = 1.69, 95% CI: 0.66 to 2.73, = 0.001) and no treatment (MD = 2.02, 95% CI: 0.70 to 3.33, = 0.003) groups. No significant differences were observed in the occurrence of adverse reactions. Overall, we found that MET is more efficacious for improving hamstring flexibility compared to stretching and having no treatment during sit and reach tests because it combines isometric contraction with stretching. Owing to clinical heterogeneity, uncertain risk of bias, and the small number of included studies, further high-quality studies should assess the effectiveness of MET.
自2005年以来，尚未有关于包括肌肉能量技术（MET）在内的多种手法治疗对腘绳肌影响的系统评价。因此，本系统评价旨在为MET对腘绳肌柔韧性的有效性提供临床证据。我们检索了截至2022年3月底的10个电子数据库（PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane图书馆、KISS、NDSL、KMBASE、KISTI、RISS、Dbpia和OASIS）。本研究仅纳入了调查使用MET治疗腘绳肌的随机对照试验（RCT）。文献使用Endnote进行整理。文献筛选和数据提取由两名研究人员独立进行。使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具1.0评估纳入RCT的方法学质量，并使用RevMan 5.4进行荟萃分析。根据纳入标准，共从19项RCT中选取了949例患者。在主动膝关节伸展试验中，MET与其他手法之间的疗效无显著差异。对于坐位体前屈试验，与拉伸组（MD = 1.69，95%CI：0.66至2.73，P = 0.001）和无治疗组（MD = 2.02，95%CI：0.70至3.33，P = 0.003）相比，MET组具有更高的柔韧性。不良反应的发生率未观察到显著差异。总体而言，我们发现与坐位体前屈试验中的拉伸和不治疗相比，MET在改善腘绳肌柔韧性方面更有效，因为它将等长收缩与拉伸相结合。由于临床异质性、偏倚风险不确定以及纳入研究数量较少，应开展进一步的高质量研究来评估MET的有效性。
