Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10321/4452
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.advisorVaratharajullu, Desiree-
dc.contributor.advisorAbdul-Rasheed, Ashura-
dc.contributor.authorDicks, Tyron D.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2022-10-27T14:36:47Z-
dc.date.available2022-10-27T14:36:47Z-
dc.date.issued2022-05-13-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10321/4452-
dc.descriptionDissertation submitted in partial compliance with the requirements for the Master’s Degree in Technology: Chiropractic, Durban University of Technology, Durban, South Africa, 2022.en_US
dc.description.abstractNeck pain has become a problem experienced worldwide and it poses a global healthcare challenge to practising medical professions. There are numerous manual and non-manual treatments available for this frequently encountered problem. Frequently utilised and effective therapies are spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and ischaemic compression (IC); however, these have been associated with several contraindications. An alternative form of treatment with less contraindications that may be of benefit to the patient is muscle energy technique (MET). Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the effect of spinal manipulative therapy and ischaemic compression compared to muscle energy technique in chronic nonspecific neck pain. Methodology: This study was a quantitative randomised, single blinded clinical trial. Forty participants with nonspecific pain, aged 20-50 years, were randomly allocated into two groups using a random allocation chart provided by a statistician. Group one received SMT and IC, whereas group two received MET alone. The numerical pain rating scale (NRS) was used to determine the level of neck pain. The cervical range of motion (CROM) goniometer was used to calculate the degree of lateral flexion occurring at the neck. The pain pressure algometer was used to determine the pain pressure thresholds (PPT). The Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC) Neck Disability Index (NDI) was used to assess the disability in activities of daily living as a consequence of neck pain. Each participant had four consultations over a two-week period, receiving treatment on the first three consultations with the fourth being purely subjective and objective measurements. Results: Repeated measures ANOVA testing was utilised to examine the changes over time in each group. Profile plots were used to visually explore the trends of each group over time. Intra-group analysis of subjective and objective measurements revealed that both groups had a beneficial response to the treatment over time. Inter-group analysis showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of subjective and objective measurements. Conclusion: In conclusion, this study revealed that the use of MET is as equally effective as a combination of SMT and IC in the treatment of chronic nonspecific neck painen_US
dc.format.extent127 pen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectSpinal manipulative therapyen_US
dc.subjectIschaemic compressionen_US
dc.subjectMuscle energy techniqueen_US
dc.subjectNeck painen_US
dc.titleThe effect of spinal manipulative therapy and ischaemic compression versus muscle energy technique in chronic nonspecific neck painen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.description.levelMen_US
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.51415/10321/4452-
local.sdgSDG03-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.openairetypeThesis-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextopen-
Appears in Collections:Theses and dissertations (Health Sciences)
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
Dicks_TD_2021.pdf3.26 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

271
checked on Dec 22, 2024

Download(s)

475
checked on Dec 22, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.