Investigating the effects of myofascial induction therapy techniques on pain, function and quality of life in patients with chronic low back pain

Low back pain (LBP) is well documented as a common health problem; it is the leading cause of activity limitation and work absence throughout much of the world, and it causes an enormous economic burden on individuals, families, communities, industry, and governments. The aim of this study was to co...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of bodywork and movement therapies 2020-10, Vol.24 (4), p.188-195
Main Authors: Ünal, Mehmet, Evci̇k, Ender, Kocatürk, Muammer, Algun, Z. Candan
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Chronic low back pain
Chronic Pain - therapy
Disability Evaluation
Humans
Induction Chemotherapy
Low Back Pain - therapy
Manual therapy
Myofascial induction therapy
Pain Measurement
Pain neuroscience education
Quality of Life
Surveys and Questionnaires
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Low back pain (LBP) is well documented as a common health problem; it is the leading cause of activity limitation and work absence throughout much of the world, and it causes an enormous economic burden on individuals, families, communities, industry, and governments. The aim of this study was to comparatively investigate the effects of myofascial induction therapy (MIT) against pain neuroscience education (PNE) on pain and function in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Forty patients with CLBP were included and randomly divided into two groups according to the treatment program (40 min/session, 2 sessions/week during 8-week), as follows: the MIT and the PNE groups. The outcome measures were the fear-avoidance beliefs questionnaire (FABQ), Roland Morris disability questionnaire, McGill pain questionnaire, finger floor test, SF-36 quality-of-life questionnaire, and thoracolumbar fascia ultrasound imaging results. Patients were evaluated before and after treatment. Within both groups, all outcome scores showed a significant improvement (p 
ISSN:1360-8592
1532-9283
DOI:10.1016/j.jbmt.2020.07.014