Suppr超能文献

不同物理治疗干预对改善腘绳肌紧张的大学生柔韧性的影响——一项系统评价和网状Meta分析

Effects of Different Physical Therapy Interventions in Improving Flexibility in University Students with Hamstring Tightness - A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

作者信息

Liyanage Esther, Malwanage Kavinda, Senarath Dilhari, Wijayasinghe Hashini, Liyanage Indrajith, Chellapillai Dhananjee, Nishshanka Shiromi

机构信息

Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, University of Peradeniya, SRI LANKA.

Department of Basic Sciences, Faculty of Allied Health Sciences, University of Peradeniya, SRI LANKA.

出版信息

Int J Exerc Sci. 2024 Mar 1;17(3):359-381. doi: 10.70252/ZOLU9336. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

UNLABELLED

The aim of the present study was to identify the different interventions for hamstring flexibility among university students with hamstring tightness and to determine the better treatment method.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis. An electronic search of the databases: Medline, Pubmed, Cochrane, EMBASE, CINAHL, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) was conducted. A total of 11 articles were included in the review. Of these articles, 02 were case-control studies, 02 were interventional pre-post studies and 07 were RCTs. The 07 RCTs were included for network meta-analysis. The findings of the initial network meta-analysis (NMA) which compared control i.e., no intervention with other interventions revealed that all the physical therapy interventions: stretching, electrotherapy combined with stretching, massage, dry needling and neurodynamic exercises combined with stretching and neurodynamics alone were superior to control. Since most studies included stretching as an intervention, a second NMA was conducted to compare the different physical therapy interventions with stretching. The results suggested that US-guided neuromodulation (WMD: -5.80, CI: -12.11, 0.51) had large effects on hamstring flexibility compared to stretching and stretching combined with electrotherapy i.e., cryotherapy and ultrasound (WMD: 0.25, CI: -1.14 to 1.64), MET (WMD: 3.10, CI: -3.28 to 9.48) and massage (WMD: 8.05, CI: -11.90 to 27.18) were inferior to stretching. To further investigate the effects of these interventions three meta-analysis were performed. The results revealed that stretching was more effective (SMD 2.27, 95% 0.72 to 3.81, < 0.01) compared to control (no intervention). Neurodynamic exercises combined with stretching and neurodynamics alone were found to be superior to stretching alone ((SMD -0.69, 95% -1.35 to -0.03, < 0.01) and stretching combined with electrotherapy was not significantly better than stretching alone ((SMD -0.07, 95% -1.00 to 0.87, =0.88). Neurodynamic exercises combined with stretching and neurodynamics alone showed to be superior to the other physical therapy interventions in improving hamstring flexibility for hamstring tightness among university students, however, the reliability of the evidence is low.

摘要

未标注

本研究的目的是确定针对腘绳肌紧张的大学生腘绳肌柔韧性的不同干预措施,并确定更好的治疗方法。

设计

系统评价和网络荟萃分析。对以下数据库进行了电子检索:Medline、Pubmed、Cochrane、EMBASE、CINAHL、物理治疗证据数据库(PEDro)。本评价共纳入11篇文章。其中,2篇为病例对照研究,2篇为干预前后研究,7篇为随机对照试验。纳入7篇随机对照试验进行网络荟萃分析。最初的网络荟萃分析(NMA)比较了对照组(即不干预)与其他干预措施,结果显示所有物理治疗干预措施:拉伸、电疗联合拉伸、按摩、干针疗法以及神经动力学练习联合拉伸和单独的神经动力学练习均优于对照组。由于大多数研究将拉伸作为一种干预措施,因此进行了第二次网络荟萃分析,以比较不同的物理治疗干预措施与拉伸。结果表明,与拉伸以及拉伸联合电疗(即冷冻疗法和超声波)相比,超声引导神经调节(加权均数差:-5.80,可信区间:-12.11,0.51)对腘绳肌柔韧性有较大影响;肌肉能量技术(加权均数差:3.10,可信区间:-3.28至9.48)和按摩(加权均数差:8.05,可信区间:-11.90至27.18)不如拉伸。为进一步研究这些干预措施的效果,进行了三项荟萃分析。结果显示,与对照组(不干预)相比,拉伸更有效(标准化均数差2.27,95%可信区间0.72至3.81,P<0.01)。发现神经动力学练习联合拉伸和单独的神经动力学练习优于单独拉伸(标准化均数差-0.69,95%可信区间-1.35至-0.03,P<0.01),拉伸联合电疗并不比单独拉伸显著更好(标准化均数差-0.07,95%可信区间-1.00至0.87,P=0.88)。对于腘绳肌紧张的大学生,神经动力学练习联合拉伸和单独的神经动力学练习在改善腘绳肌柔韧性方面优于其他物理治疗干预措施,然而,证据的可靠性较低。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/01ed/11042845/33ec3d5161fb/ijes-17-3-359f1.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验