Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Chiropr Educ ; 0(0): 0, 2024 Feb 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38329314

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: This project compared student learning and satisfaction of an anatomy review delivered by a face-to-face lecture (F2FL) and an online learning module (OLM) for third-year doctor of chiropractic students. METHODS: This cohort study compared student learning and satisfaction of a pediatric spinal anatomy review delivered via F2FL (cohort 1, n = 23) and OLM (cohort 2, n = 18) in 2 successive 2019 (pre-COVID) course offerings. Previously validated pre- and post-tests were given. Students completed a survey assessing delivery, comfort with online learning and online learning technology, and preference of F2FL vs OLM of review material. Pre- and post-test results were assessed using repeated-measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: Testing results showed an improvement with both groups (F2FL 53.7%, p < .001 vs OLM 51.8%, p < .001), with no significant difference between the F2FL and OLM groups (p = .53; p = .82). The survey showed: 83.3% of OLM students felt the online method was effective, and 88.9% of the OLM students would prefer online reviews or have no preference between online or face-to-face; meanwhile, 80% of the F2FL group thought the lecture engaging/effective, whereas 60% of the F2FL group would have preferred to have the material presented online. CONCLUSION: The OLM was found to be as effective as the F2FL for the content assessed. The majority of students would prefer the online method for future anatomy review content presented in the course. This strategy could be applied to provide review materials in other clinical courses, allowing material to be developed and given by content experts while freeing valuable in-class time.

2.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther ; 36(4): 203-17, 2013 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23648055

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to quantify lumbar zygapophyseal (Z) joint space separation (gapping) in low back pain (LBP) subjects after spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) or side-posture positioning (SPP). METHODS: This was a controlled mechanisms trial with randomization and blinding. Acute LBP subjects (N = 112; four n = 28 magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] protocol groups) had 2 MRI appointments (initial enrollment and after 2 weeks of chiropractic treatment, receiving 2 MRI scans of the L4/L5 and L5/S1 Z joints at each MRI appointment. After the first MRI scan of each appointment, subjects were randomized (initial enrollment appointment) or assigned (after 2 weeks of chiropractic treatment appointment) into SPP (nonmanipulation), SMT (manipulation), or control MRI protocol groups. After SPP or SMT, a second MRI was taken. The central anterior-posterior joint space was measured. Difference between most painful side anterior-posterior measurements taken postintervention and preintervention was the Z joint "gapping difference." Gapping differences were compared (analysis of variance) among protocol groups. Secondary measures of pain (visual analog scale, verbal numeric pain rating scale) and function (Bournemouth questionnaire) were assessed. RESULTS: Gapping differences were significant at the first (adjusted, P = .009; SPP, 0.66 ± 0.48 mm; SMT, 0.23 ± 0.86; control, 0.18 ± 0.71) and second (adjusted, P = .0005; SPP, 0.65 ± 0.92 mm; SMT, 0.89 ± 0.71; control, 0.35 ± 0.32) MRI appointments. Verbal numeric pain rating scale differences were significant at first MRI appointment (P = .04) with SMT showing the greatest improvement. Visual analog scale and Bournemouth questionnaire improved after 2 weeks of care in all groups (both P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Side-posture positioning showed greatest gapping at baseline. After 2 weeks, SMT resulted in greatest gapping. Side-posture positioning appeared to have additive therapeutic benefit to SMT.


Assuntos
Dor Lombar/terapia , Vértebras Lombares , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética/métodos , Manipulação da Coluna/métodos , Posicionamento do Paciente/métodos , Articulação Zigapofisária/patologia , Doença Aguda , Adulto , Idoso , Agendamento de Consultas , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Dor Lombar/diagnóstico , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Medição da Dor , Postura , Amplitude de Movimento Articular/fisiologia , Método Simples-Cego , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento
3.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther ; 35(8): 614-21, 2012 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22902194

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to use previously validated methods to quantify and relate 2 phenomena associated with chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (SMT): (1) cavitation and (2) the simultaneous gapping (separation) of the lumbar zygapophyseal (Z) joint spaces. METHODS: This was a randomized, controlled, mechanistic clinical trial with blinding. Forty healthy participants (18-30 years old) without a history of low-back pain participated. Seven accelerometers were affixed to the skin overlying the spinous processes of L1 to L5 and the S1 and S2 sacral tubercles. Two additional accelerometers were positioned 3 cm left and right lateral to the L4/L5 interspinous space. Participants were randomized into group 1, side-posture SMT (n = 30), or group 2, side-posture positioning (SPP, n = 10). Cavitations were determined by accelerometer recordings during SMT and SPP (left side = upside for both groups); gapping (gapping difference) was determined by the difference between pre- and postintervention magnetic resonance imaging scan joint space measurements. Results of mean gapping differences were compared. RESULTS: Upside SMT and SPP joints gapped more than downside joints (0.69 vs -0.17 mm, P < .0001). Spinal manipulative therapy upside joints gapped more than SPP upside joints (0.75 vs 0.52 mm, P = .03). Spinal manipulative therapy upside joints gapped more in men than in women (1.01 vs 0.49 mm, P < .002). Overall, joints that cavitated gapped more than those that did not (0.56 vs 0.22 mm, P = .01). No relationship was found between the occurrence of cavitation and gapping with upside joints alone (P = .43). CONCLUSIONS: Zygapophyseal joints receiving chiropractic SMT gapped more than those receiving SPP alone; Z joints of men gapped more than those of women, and cavitation indicated that a joint had gapped but not how much a joint had gapped.


Assuntos
Dor Lombar/terapia , Vértebras Lombares , Manipulação da Coluna/métodos , Amplitude de Movimento Articular/fisiologia , Articulação Zigapofisária/patologia , Aceleração , Adolescente , Adulto , Intervalos de Confiança , Estudos de Avaliação como Assunto , Feminino , Humanos , Dor Lombar/diagnóstico , Região Lombossacral , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética/métodos , Masculino , Manejo da Dor , Valores de Referência , Método Simples-Cego , Resultado do Tratamento , Adulto Jovem
4.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther ; 33(3): 220-5, 2010.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20350676

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: This purpose of this study was to assess the reliability of measurements made of the zygapophysial (Z) joint space from the magnetic resonance imaging scans of subjects with acute low back pain using new equipment and 2 different methods of statistical analysis. If found to be reliable, the methods of Z joint measurement can be applied to scans taken before and after spinal manipulation in a larger study of acute low back pain subjects. METHODS: Three observers measured the central anterior-to-posterior distance of the left and right L4/L5 and L5/S1 Z joint space from 5 subject scans (20 digitizer measurements, rounded to 0.1 mm) on 2 separate occasions separated by 4 weeks. Observers were blinded to each other and their previous work. Intra- and interobserver reliability was calculated by means of intraclass correlation coefficients and also by mean differences using the methods of Bland and Altman (1986). A mean difference of less than +/-0.4 mm was considered clinically acceptable. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficients showed intraobserver reliabilities of 0.95 (95% confidence interval, 0.87-0.98), 0.83 (0.62-0.92), and 0.92 (0.83-0.96) for each of the 3 observers and interobserver reliabilities of 0.90 (0.82-0.95), 0.79 (0.61-0.90), and 0.84 (0.75-0.90) for the first and second measurements and overall reliability, respectively. The mean difference between the first and second measurements was -0.04 mm (+/-1.96 SD = -0.37 to 0.29), 0.23 (-0.48 to 0.94), 0.25 (-0.24 to 0.75), and 0.15 (-0.44 to 0.74) for each of the 3 observers and the overall agreement, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both statistical methods were found to be useful and complementary and showed the measurements to be highly reliable.


Assuntos
Quiroprática/métodos , Quiroprática/estatística & dados numéricos , Articulações/patologia , Dor Lombar/patologia , Dor Lombar/reabilitação , Imageamento por Ressonância Magnética , Doença Aguda , Humanos , Vértebras Lombares/patologia , Postura , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Rotação
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...