The effect of two mobilization techniques on dorsiflexion in people with chronic ankle instability

Marrón-Gómez, David; Rodríguez-Fernández, Ángel Luis; Martín-Urrialde, Jose Antonio

doi:10.1016/j.ptsp.2014.02.001

Cited by 54 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Overall, the quality scores of the included articles ranged from 40% to 80%, with a median of 60%. We found 7 level 1 studies 16,17,19,20,26,28,29 and 3 level 2 studies. 15,18,27 The overall quality score for the DFROM control-to-intervention comparison ranged from 60% to 80%, with a median of 70%.…”

Section: Methodologic Qualitymentioning

confidence: 80%

“…Of the initial 196 articles retrieved from the electronic and hand searches, 10 articles met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review ( Figure 1). The authors of 10 articles [15][16][17][18][19][20][26][27][28][29] had examined DFROM changes after a mobilization intervention. Of the 10 articles, preintervention-to-postintervention DFROM changes had been investigated in 9, 15,[17][18][19][20][26][27][28][29] and DFROM differences between a control or sham group and an intervention group had been investigated in 8.…”

Section: Literature Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The authors of 10 articles [15][16][17][18][19][20][26][27][28][29] had examined DFROM changes after a mobilization intervention. Of the 10 articles, preintervention-to-postintervention DFROM changes had been investigated in 9, 15,[17][18][19][20][26][27][28][29] and DFROM differences between a control or sham group and an intervention group had been investigated in 8. 16,17,19,20,[26][27][28][29] In 6 articles, 15,16,18,19,26,27 the researchers had assessed SEBT changes after a mobilization intervention.…”

Section: Literature Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the 10 articles, preintervention-to-postintervention DFROM changes had been investigated in 9, 15,[17][18][19][20][26][27][28][29] and DFROM differences between a control or sham group and an intervention group had been investigated in 8. 16,17,19,20,[26][27][28][29] In 6 articles, 15,16,18,19,26,27 the researchers had assessed SEBT changes after a mobilization intervention. The authors of 5 15,18,19,26,27 of these 6 articles had examined preintervention-to-postintervention SEBT changes, and the authors of 4 articles 16,19,26,27 had examined SEBT differences between a control or sham group and an intervention group.…”

Section: Literature Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the available evidence-based interventions, joint mobilizations have demonstrated the ability to enhance DFROM and dynamic postural control. [15][16][17][18] Joint-mobilization techniques, primarily Maitland grade 3 talocrural anterior-to-posterior mobilization and Mulligan talocrural mobilizations with movement (MWMs), have shown efficacy in improving DFROM, as they are proposed to enhance the posterior translation of the talus. 15,16,19,20 Furthermore, mechanical application of joint mobilizations may also stimulate the sensorimotor system, leading to improved postural control.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Changes in Dorsiflexion and Dynamic Postural Control After Mobilizations in Individuals With Chronic Ankle Instability: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Vallandingham

Gaven

Powden

2019

Journal of Athletic Training

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis assessing the effectiveness of joint mobilizations for improving dorsiflexion range of motion (DFROM) and dynamic postural control in individuals with chronic ankle instability. Data Sources Electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus) were searched from inception to January 2017. Study Selection Included studies examined the isolated effects of joint mobilizations to enhance DFROM and dynamic postural control in individuals with chronic ankle instability and provided adequate data to calculate effect sizes (ESs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Data Extraction Two investigators independently assessed the methodologic quality, level of evidence, and strength of recommendation using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale and the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy. We extracted the sample sizes, means, and standard deviations for DFROM and dynamic postural control and filtered the data based on control-to-intervention and preintervention-to-postintervention (pre-post) comparisons. Data Synthesis We included 7 level 1 and 3 level 2 studies that had a median Physiotherapy Evidence Database score of 60% (range = 40%–80%). The magnitudes of control-to-intervention and pre-post differences were examined using bias-corrected Hedges g ESs. Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted for each outcome measure and comparison. Positive ESs indicated better outcome scores in the intervention group than in the control group and at postintervention than at preintervention. The α level was set at .05. Meta-analysis revealed weak and moderate ESs for overall control-to-intervention (ES = 0.41; 95% CI = 0.14, 0.68; P = .003) and pre-post (ES = 0.34; 95% CI = 0.20, 0.48; P < .001) DFROM analyses. Overall, dynamic postural control meta-analysis revealed moderate control-to-intervention (ES = 0.42; 95% CI = −0.14, 0.98; P = .14) and weak and moderate ESs for pre-post (ES = 0.37; 95% CI = −0.12, 0.87; P = .14) analyses. Conclusions We observed grade A evidence that joint mobilizations can mildly improve DFROM among individuals with chronic ankle instability compared with controls and preintervention. We observed grade B evidence that indicated conflicting effects of joint mobilizations on dynamic postural control compared with controls and preintervention.

show abstract