Search

* OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of spinal thrust manipulation and electrical dry needling (TMEDN group) to those of nonthrust peripheral joint/Soft tissue mobilization, exercise, and interferential current (NTMEX group) on pain and disability in patients with subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS). * DESIGN: Randomized, single-blinded, multi-center parallel-group trial. * METHODS: Patients with SAPS were randomized into the TMEDN group (n = 73) or the NTMEX group (n = 72). Primary outcomes included the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index and the numeric pain-rating scale. Secondary outcomes included the global rating of change scale (GROC) and medication intake. The treatment period was 6 weeks, with follow-ups at 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 3 months. * RESULTS: At 3 months, the TMEDN group experienced greater reductions in shoulder pain and disability (P<.001) compared to the NTMEX group. Effect sizes were large in favor of the TMEDN group. At 3 months, a greater proportion of patients within the TMEDN group achieved a successful outcome (GROC score of 5 or greater) and stopped taking medication (P<.001). * CONCLUSION: Cervicothoracic and upper-rib thrust manipulation combined with electrical dry needling resulted in greater reductions in pain, disability, and medication intake than nonthrust peripheral joint/soft tissue mobilization, exercise, and interferential current in patients with SAPS. The effects were maintained at 3 months. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

palacios-ceña d., losa-iglesias m.e., álvarez-lópez c., cachón-pérez m., reyes r.a.r., salvadores-fuentes p. & fernández-de-las-peñas c. (2011) Patients, intimate partners and family experiences of implantable cardioverter defibrillators: qualitative systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing 67(12), 2537-2550. Abstract Aim. This paper is a report of an interpretive review of qualitative research on how an implantable cardioverter defibrillator affects adult recipients and their significant others. Background. An implantable cardioverter defibrillator detects pathological cardiac rhythms and automatically converts the rhythm with electrical counter shocks. Data sources. A systematic literature search was conducted for qualitative research papers published between January 1999 and January 2009. PubMed, Medline, ISI Web of Knowledge and CINAHL databases were searched with the following key words: internal defibrillator, implantable defibrillator and qualitative research. Review Methods. Twenty-two papers were included. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme and Prompts were used to appraise studies. Thematic analysis and synthesis approaches were used to interpret evidence. Findings. People with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator were found to experience physical, psychological and social changes. Shocks produce fear and anxiety, affecting relationships and sexual relations. The use of support groups and the use of the Internet are important in helping adjustment to an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Women's responses to an implantable cardioverter defibrillator appear different than men's responses and include concerns about physical appearance and relationship issues. Postdischarge follow-up and educational programmes are still underdeveloped. Conclusion. Patients need additional education, support and follow-up care after hospital discharge. Patients and significant others benefit from collaboration between patient associations and healthcare professional societies. Future research is needed to identify the specific challenges that women recipients face. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]