Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDurmus, Dilek
dc.contributor.authorAlayli, Gamze
dc.contributor.authorGoktepe, Ahmet Salim
dc.contributor.authorTaskaynatan, Mehmet Ali
dc.contributor.authorBilgici, Ayhan
dc.contributor.authorKuru, Omer
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-21T14:05:16Z
dc.date.available2020-06-21T14:05:16Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.identifier.issn0172-8172
dc.identifier.issn1437-160X
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-012-2634-7
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12712/15802
dc.descriptionWOS: 000321259500012en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed: 23283539en_US
dc.description.abstractThe aim of this trial is to investigate and compare the effects of phonophoresis (PP) and ultrasound (US) therapy on pain, disability, trunk muscle strength, walking performance, spinal mobility, quality of life (QOL), and depression in the patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). A total of 60 patients with definite CLBP were included in this study. The patients were randomized into three groups. Group 1 (n = 20) was accepted as the control group and was given only exercises. Group 2 (n = 20) received US treatment and exercises. Group 3 (n = 20) received PP and exercises. All of the programs were performed 3 days a week, for 6 weeks. The pain (visual analog scale, VAS), disability (Oswestry Disability Questionnaire, ODQ and pain disability index, PDI), walking performance (6 min walking test, 6MWT), depression (Beck Depression Inventory scores, BDI), and QOL (Short Form 36, SF-36) of all participants were evaluated. The trunk muscle strength was measured with a handheld dynamometer. All of the groups showed statistically significant improvements in pain, disability, muscle strength, endurance, 6MWT, mobility, QOL, and depression. The intergroup comparison showed significant differences in VAS pain, 6MWT, and EMS, among three groups. These differences were statistically significant in groups 2 and 3 compared with the group 1. The intergroup comparison showed significant difference in pain, physical function, and energy subgroups of SF-36. The differences were statistically in group 3 compared with group 1 and 2. We observed that US and PP treatments were effective in the treatment of patients with CLBP but PP was not found to be superior over ultrasound therapy.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherSpringer Heidelbergen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1007/s00296-012-2634-7en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectChronic low back painen_US
dc.subjectPhonophoresisen_US
dc.subjectUltrasounden_US
dc.subjectTrunk muscle strengthen_US
dc.subjectPainen_US
dc.subjectDisabilityen_US
dc.subjectEnduranceen_US
dc.subjectQuality of lifeen_US
dc.subjectDepressionen_US
dc.titleIs phonophoresis effective in the treatment of chronic low back pain? A single-blind randomized controlled trialen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.contributor.departmentOMÜen_US
dc.identifier.volume33en_US
dc.identifier.issue7en_US
dc.identifier.startpage1737en_US
dc.identifier.endpage1744en_US
dc.relation.journalRheumatology Internationalen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record