RESUMO
Introducción: Se ha demostrado que la terapia manual reduce los síntomas autoreportados en pacientes con cefalea tensional crónica (CTC). Sin embargo, la aplicación simultánea de la técnica de inhibición muscular suboccipital y corriente interferencial no se ha investigado previamente. Este estudio evalúa la efectividad de la inhibición muscular suboccipital y la corriente interferencial en comparación con los cuidados habituales sobre el dolor, la discapacidad y el impacto de la cefalea en pacientes con CTC.MétodosLos pacientes se asignaron al azar al grupo de cuidados habituales (n = 13) o experimental (n = 12) que consistió en 20 minutos de inhibición muscular suboccipital y corriente interferencial dos veces por semana durante cuatro semanas. El resultado primario fue el dolor, y los resultados secundarios incluyeron la discapacidad producida por el dolor de cabeza y el impacto del dolor de cabeza que se valoraron por un evaluador cegado al inicio y después de cuatro semanas.ResultadosLos análisis mostraron diferencias entre los grupos a favor del grupo experimental a las cuatro semanas para la discapacidad producida por el dolor de cabeza (Neck Disability Index: g-Hedges = 1,01; p = 0,001; Headache Disability Inventory: g-Hedges = 0,48; p = 0,022) e impacto del dolor de cabeza (HIT-6: g-Hedges = 0,15; p = 0,037) pero no para el dolor autoreportado (Numerical Rating Scale: g-Hedges = 1,13; p = 0,18).ConclusionesLa aplicación simultánea de inhibición muscular suboccipital y corriente interferencial en pacientes con CTC no reduce significativamente el dolor autoreportado a las cuatro semanas. Sin embargo, mejora la discapacidad y el impacto del dolor de cabeza en la vida diaria. Estas mejoras superaron el mínimo cambio clínicamente importante de las mediciones, destacando su relevancia clínica. (AU)
Introduction: Manual therapy has been shown to reduce self-reported symptoms in patients with chronic tension-type headache (CTTH). However, simultaneous application of suboccipital muscle inhibition and interferential current has not previously been investigated. This study evaluates the effectiveness of combined treatment with suboccipital muscle inhibition and interferential current compared to standard treatment for pain, disability, and headache impact in patients with CTTH.MethodsPatients were randomly allocated to receive either standard treatment (n = 13) or the experimental treatment (n = 12), consisting of 20 minutes of suboccipital muscle inhibition plus interferential current twice weekly for 4 weeks. The primary outcome was improvement in pain, and secondary outcomes included improvement in headache-related disability and reduction in headache impact, which were assessed at baseline and at 4 weeks by a blinded rater.ResultsStatistical analysis showed improvements in the experimental treatment group at 4 weeks for headache-related disability (Neck Disability Index: Hedges g = 1.01, P = .001; and Headache Disability Inventory: Hedges g = 0.48, P = .022) and headache impact (6-item Headache Impact Test: Hedges g = 0.15, P = .037) but not for self-reported pain (numerical rating scale: Hedges g = 1.13, P = .18).ConclusionsCombined treatment with suboccipital muscle inhibition and interferential current in patients with CTTH did not significantly improve self-reported pain but did reduce disability and the impact of headache on daily life at 4 weeks. These improvements exceed the minimum clinically important difference, demonstrating the clinical relevance of our findings. (AU)
Assuntos
Humanos , Modalidades de Fisioterapia , Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica , Transtornos da Cefaleia , Analgesia , CervicalgiaRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Manual therapy has been shown to reduce self-reported symptoms in patients with chronic tension-type headache (CTTH). However, simultaneous application of suboccipital muscle inhibition and interferential current has not previously been investigated. This study evaluates the effectiveness of combined treatment with suboccipital muscle inhibition and interferential current compared to standard treatment for pain, disability, and headache impact in patients with CTTH. METHODS: Patients were randomly allocated to receive either standard treatment (n = 13) or the experimental treatment (n = 12), consisting of 20 minutes of suboccipital muscle inhibition plus interferential current twice weekly for 4 weeks. The primary outcome was improvement in pain, and secondary outcomes included improvement in headache-related disability and reduction in headache impact, which were assessed at baseline and at 4 weeks by a blinded rater. RESULTS: Statistical analysis showed improvements in the experimental treatment group at 4 weeks for headache-related disability (Neck Disability Index: Hedges' g = 1.01, P = .001; and Headache Disability Inventory: Hedges' g = 0.48, P = .022) and headache impact (6-item Headache Impact Test: Hedges' g = 0.15, P = .037) but not for self-reported pain (numerical rating scale: Hedges' g = 1.13, P = .18). CONCLUSIONS: Combined treatment with suboccipital muscle inhibition and interferential current in patients with CTTH did not significantly improve self-reported pain but did reduce disability and the impact of headache on daily life at 4 weeks. These improvements exceed the minimum clinically important difference, demonstrating the clinical relevance of our findings.
Assuntos
Manipulações Musculoesqueléticas , Cefaleia do Tipo Tensional , Humanos , Cefaleia do Tipo Tensional/terapia , Cefaleia do Tipo Tensional/diagnóstico , Músculos do Pescoço , Cefaleia , DorRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Manual therapy has been shown to reduce self-reported symptoms in patients with chronic tension-type headache (CTTH). However, simultaneous application of suboccipital muscle inhibition and interferential current has not previously been investigated. This study evaluates the effectiveness of combined treatment with suboccipital muscle inhibition and interferential current compared to standard treatment for pain, disability, and headache impact in patients with CTTH. METHODS: Patients were randomly allocated to receive either standard treatment (n = 13) or the experimental treatment (n = 12), consisting of 20 minutes of suboccipital muscle inhibition plus interferential current twice weekly for 4 weeks. The primary outcome was improvement in pain, and secondary outcomes included improvement in headache-related disability and reduction in headache impact, which were assessed at baseline and at 4 weeks by a blinded rater. RESULTS: Statistical analysis showed improvements in the experimental treatment group at 4 weeks for headache-related disability (Neck Disability Index: Hedges' g = 1.01, P = .001; and Headache Disability Inventory: Hedges' g = 0.48, P = .022) and headache impact (6-item Headache Impact Test: Hedges' g = 0.15, P = .037) but not for self-reported pain (numerical rating scale: Hedges' g = 1.13, P = .18). CONCLUSIONS: Combined treatment with suboccipital muscle inhibition and interferential current in patients with CTTH did not significantly improve self-reported pain but did reduce disability and the impact of headache on daily life at 4 weeks. These improvements exceed the minimum clinically important difference, demonstrating the clinical relevance of our findings.
RESUMO
Introducción. En muchos países ha aparecido una creciente preocupación por la calidad del rendimiento y la producción científica de los investigadores y académicos, así como por los aspectos de su evaluación. La productividad científica se considera un indicador de la actividad científica de un área o disciplina. Gran parte de los estudios bibliométricos están basados en el análisis de las citaciones. El factor de impacto se define como el cociente entre el número de citas que recibe una revista en un año concreto respecto al número de artículos publicados en la misma revista durante los dos años previos. Objetivo. El objetivo de la revisión fue identificar el papel del factor de impacto como criterio de evaluación de la producción científica y su calidad, aplicado a las publicaciones periódicas, las instituciones y los investigadores particulares. Material y método. Se realizó una búsqueda en las bases de datos MEDLINE, Academic Search Premier y Sportdiscus, utilizando los descriptores «Journal Impact Factor, Impact Factor and Bibliometrics, Academies and Institutes, Research». Conclusiones. Existe una gran controversia respecto al uso del factor de impacto en los procesos de evaluación de la calidad de la producción científica de las revistas, las instituciones y los investigadores, pero la escasez de criterios e indicadores alternativos aceptados por la comunidad científica y las comisiones de evaluación provoca que el factor de impacto sea, prácticamente, el único indicador aceptado y utilizado de forma amplia, especialmente en Europa (AU)
Introduction. Currently, there is increasing concern regarding the quality of scientific performance and productivity of the investigators and academicians and aspects of their evaluation. Scientific productivity is considered an indicator of scientific activity of a discipline. Most bibliometrics studies are based on citation analysis. The impact factor is defined as the quotient between the number of citations received by a journal in a specific year compared to the number of articles published in the same journal during the previous two years. Objective. The objective of this review has been to identify the impact factor as an evaluation criterion of scientific productivity and its quality, applied to periodic publications, institutions and researchers. Material and methods. To do so, we carried out a search in the data bases MEDLINE, Academic Search Premier and Sportdiscus, using the descriptors Journal Impact Factor, Impact Factor and Bibliometrics, Academies and Institutes, Research. Conclusions. We found that there is great controversy regarding the use of the impact factor in the evaluation procedures of the quality of scientific productivity of the journals, institutions and researchers. However, the few criteria and alternative indicators accepted by the scientific community and the evaluation committees makes the impact factor to be practically the only one that is accepted and used, especially in Europe (AU)
