İnterferansiyel Akımların Kronik Miyofasyal Ağrı Sendromunda Kısa Dönem Etkinliği

Ofluoğlu, Demet; Aydin, Elif Bulak; Kablan, Nilüfer; Akyüz, Gülseren

doi:10.4274/tftr.87259

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of these, 475 were excluded, and 55 were exposed to a thorough review of the full article. Twenty-two studies were excluded after the review of the full article because of a lack of randomization, [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] using different study designs, 35,36 the lack of a control group, 37,38 different study populations (comparing two different treatments with one including ICF), 39,40 lack of the required outcome measures, [41][42][43] different languages, 44,45 inaccessibility of the full article, 46 and a lack of the desired intervention. 47 The final results included 33 trials in addition to two other trials 12,48 that were added after the manual search of the reference list (see Supplemental Digital Content 3, http://links.lww.com/ PHM/B380).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Investigating the Pain-Relieving Effect of Interferential Current on Musculoskeletal Pain

Hussein

Alshammari

Al-Barak

et al. 2021

Am J Phys Med Rehabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Interferential current is one of the most common electrotherapeutic modalities used in the treatment of painful conditions. Patients seeking medical help to reduce their musculoskeletal pain can be treated using interferential current. Objective: The current review aimed to analyze the recently available information regarding the efficacy of interferential current in alleviating the pain of musculoskeletal origin. Methods: This study used Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Embase, and EBSCOas as data sources. The initial selection of the studies, thorough assessment of the full articles, and extraction of the necessary study characteristics were carried out by two independent reviewers. Another two independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality of each included trial against 39 criteria. These criteria were integrated from several popular scales. Pain intensity-measured using the visual analog scale, numeric pain rating scale, or McGill Pain Questionnaire-was the outcome of interest. Results: This review included 35 trials of variable methodological quality from which 19 trials were selected for the meta-analysis. In general, interferential current alone versus placebo demonstrated a significant pain-relieving effect. On the other hand, interferential current showed no significant difference when added to standard treatment compared with placebo plus standard treatment or standard treatment alone. Similarly, interferential current showed no significant difference when compared with other single interventions (laser, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, cryotherapy). Conclusions: Interferential current alone is better than placebo at discharge. However, the low number of studies raises suspicions about this conclusion. Interferential current alone or added to other interventions is not more effective than comparative treatments in relieving musculoskeletal pain.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Investigating the Pain-Relieving Effect of Interferential Current on Musculoskeletal Pain

Hussein

Alshammari

Al-Barak

et al. 2021

Am J Phys Med Rehabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparison of Local Anesthetic Injection and Exercise Therapy Results in Patients with Chronic Cervical Myofascial Pain Syndrome

ÇAVDAR

Büker

SAMUT

2022

Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The study was planned to evaluate patients with chronic cervical myofascial pain syndrome treated with lidocane injection and exercise and to compare the efficacy of treatments.Material and Method: The study included 73 patients (40 females, 33 males) aged between 25 and 65 years, who had been treated with exercise and lidocane injection due to the diagnosis of myofascial pain syndrome in our clinic 6 months ago, and volunteered to participate in the study. The mean age of the participants in the exercise group (n=38) was 44.16±10.63 years. The age of the participants in the lidokayn injection group (n=35) was 42.20±11.63 years. The exercise group was given stretching exercises for the neck and upper back muscles, and strengthening exercises for the neck muscles, 3 sets of 10 times a day. On the other hand, to the Lidokayn injection group participating in the study, 2 ml of 1% lidocaine was applied locally to the trigger points according to the injection technique defined by Travell and Simons. Patients' pain Visual Analogue Scale. pressure pain threshold Algometer, muscle spasm Palpable Muscle Spasm Scoring, cervical normal joint movement (CROM), disability level Neck Disability Scale, depression status Beck Depression Scale, anxiety status Beck Anxiety Inventory and quality of life SF-36 Short Form-36 scales. . Statistical significance level is (p<0.05).Results: The results of lidocaine ejection and exercise are similar in the treatment of MAS. We think that exercise therapy is more feasible in the treatment of MAS because it is non-invasive, easily applicable and more economical.

show abstract

İnterferansiyel Akımların Kronik Miyofasyal Ağrı Sendromunda Kısa Dönem Etkinliği

Cited by 2 publications

References 12 publications

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Investigating the Pain-Relieving Effect of Interferential Current on Musculoskeletal Pain

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Investigating the Pain-Relieving Effect of Interferential Current on Musculoskeletal Pain

Comparison of Local Anesthetic Injection and Exercise Therapy Results in Patients with Chronic Cervical Myofascial Pain Syndrome

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About