Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
http://hdl.handle.net/11375/11885
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | Galea, Victoria | en_US |
dc.contributor.advisor | Woodhouse, Linda | en_US |
dc.contributor.advisor | Joy MacDermid, Anita Gross | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Dawson, Diana M. | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2014-06-18T16:57:22Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2014-06-18T16:57:22Z | - |
dc.date.created | 2012-02-01 | en_US |
dc.date.issued | 2012-04 | en_US |
dc.identifier.other | opendissertations/6818 | en_US |
dc.identifier.other | 7839 | en_US |
dc.identifier.other | 2488106 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11375/11885 | - |
dc.description.abstract | <p>Neurodynamics refers to the mechanical and physiological components of</p> <p>the nervous system and the interconnections between them (Shacklock, 1995).</p> <p>This is a phase 1 pilot trial investigating the immediate effect of a neurodynamic</p> <p>treatment as compared to a sham treatment in eight participants with low back</p> <p>pain. Primary outcome measures included: H-reflex latency and nerve</p> <p>conduction velocity. Secondary outcome measures included: the sitting slump</p> <p>test and visual analog scale for pain following a neurodynamic treatment</p> <p>compared to a sham treatment on eight participants with low back pain. T-tests</p> <p>were used to analyze any differences between the groups at baseline and post-</p> <p>intervention. No statistically significant differences were observed between the</p> <p>groups at baseline. Statistically significant differences were noted post-</p> <p>intervention between the treatment groups for H-reflex latency (t(5)=4.323,</p> <p>p=0.008) and the unaffected leg sitting slump test (t(5)=3.402, p=0.019). The H-</p> <p>reflex latency increased for the group following the neurodynamic treatment and</p> <p>decreased following the sham treatment. This was not expected and is of</p> <p>interest due to the possible mechanisms that may be underlying these</p> <p>phenomena. Despite the small sample size used in this study, differences were</p> <p>observed and displayed trends that were unanticipated. These between-group</p> <p>differences are of interest but require further investigation using a larger sample</p> <p>population. Sample size calculations for future studies based on the primary</p> <p>outcome measures yielded a sample of 2008 participants. This accounted for</p> <p>both a 20% difference between the two groups and a 20% dropout rate. Future</p> <p>studies need to investigate the most beneficial length of time, type and dosage of</p> <p>neurodynamic treatments, as well as, the most appropriate times to assess the</p> <p>outcome measures. Comparison to controls would be beneficial in subsequent</p> <p>studies.</p> | en_US |
dc.subject | Neurodynamics | en_US |
dc.subject | Mobilizations | en_US |
dc.subject | Low back pain | en_US |
dc.subject | Nerve conduction | en_US |
dc.subject | H-reflex | en_US |
dc.subject | Physiotherapy | en_US |
dc.subject | Physiotherapy | en_US |
dc.title | The Effect of a Neurodynamic Treatment on Nerve Conduction in Clients with Low Back Pain | en_US |
dc.type | thesis | en_US |
dc.contributor.department | Rehabilitation Science | en_US |
dc.description.degree | Master of Science Rehabilitation Science (MSc) | en_US |
Appears in Collections: | Open Access Dissertations and Theses |
Files in This Item:
File | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|
fulltext.pdf | 6.61 MB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
Items in MacSphere are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.