The Effect of Manual Therapy on Psychological Factors and Quality of Life in Lumbar Disc Herniation Patients: A Single Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The efficacy of manual therapy on psychological factors and quality of life in lumbar disc herniation patients has not been well studied. Aim This study aimed to investigate the effect of manual therapy on pain, kinesiophobia, pain catastrophizing, anxiety, depression and quality of life in patients with lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Method The study included 32 LDH patients. Patients were divided into Manual therapy group (MTG- age 39.81 ± 9.45 years) and Exercise group (EG- age 38.31 ± 9.21 years) by sealed envelope randomization. Patients were evaluated pre-study, post-study and 3-month period using the McGill-Melzack Pain Questionnaire (MMPQ), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Tampa Kinesiophobia Scale (TKS), Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PKS) and Notthingam Health Profile (NSP). The exercise group received a total of 10 sessions of stabilization exercises in 5 weeks, 2 sessions per week. In addition to stabilization exercises, mobilization applications including Anterior-Posterior Lumbar Spinal Mobilization, Lumbar Spinal Rotational Mobilization and Joint Mobilization in Lumbar Flexion Position were applied to the manual therapy group. Results It was found that HADS and TKS values decreased in the MTG group compared to the pre-treatment period (p < 0.05), while there was no difference between these values in the EG group (p > 0.05). There was a statistically significant difference in MMPQ, PCS and NHP values after treatment in both MTG and EG groups (p < 0.05). Conclusion It was found that manual therapy had positive effects on psychological factors such as pain, kinesiophobia, pain catastrophizing, anxiety, depression and quality of life in patients with LDH. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05804357
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".