ArticleJournal of bodywork and movement therapies2021
Physical therapy for the treatment of respiratory issues using Systemic Manual Therapy protocols.
Article in Journal of bodywork and movement therapies, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe emergence of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic increased the need for an effective treatment for respiratory conditions exponentially. To meet this challenge, we reevaluated the effectiveness of our physical therapy protocols for respiratory conditions. Protocols of interest were categorized as decongestive, neurogenic, mechanical, and immune modulating.
objectiveThe objective of this study is to evaluate which of our existing treatment protocols or protocol combinations produce the best outcome. To do so, we analyzed which ones can meet the following criteria when compared to all other treatments: test statistic (>2.0) in parametric and non-parametric tests, [statistical significance (p < 0.05)], effect size larger than 0.2, difference in the Patient Identified Problem Scale (PIP) score above Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID), and sample size minimum 15 treatments.
designRetrospective multivariate analysis using a modified adaptive platform design.
methodsA computerized sampling using respiratory related key words from a blinded dataset yielded 178 patients with respiratory complaints or pain in the chest area. Additional statistical analysis using parametric and non-parametric tests evaluated the difference between each treatment protocol and the rest of the treatments provided.
resultsSeveral protocol combinations and one individual protocol passed the study criteria. Cardiac vascular venous thoracic (CVVT) protocol was used most frequently within these combinations (7), followed by Urinary Drainage (UD) (4). Other protocols in this group were Cardiac Cervical Cranial Vascular (CCCV), Venous Thoracic Cardiopulmonary (VTCP), and Diaphragm Cranial Sinus (DCS). Among the respiratory specific protocols, CVVT was significantly better than VTCP (0.40, p < 0.001). DISCUSSION AND
conclusionFor the patient population studied, CVVT appears to be the primary protocol to consider, followed by UD, CCCV, VTCP, and DCS. Combining CVVT with Barral Abdominal Motility protocol (Barral) or VTCP with Lower Abdominal Urogenital (LAUG) on the same day might be required with acute patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.