The Efficacy of Muscle Energy and Mulligan Mobilization Techniques for the Upper Extremities and Posture after Breast Cancer Surgery with Axillary Dissection: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Breast cancer surgeries affect the upper extremities and posture. This study aimed to examine the efficacy of muscle energy and Mulligan mobilization techniques on the upper extremities and posture after breast cancer surgery with axillary dissection. Methods: A total of 90 female participants who had undergone breast cancer surgery with axillary dissection were recruited and randomly assigned to three groups. Group A received a combination of the Mulligan and muscle energy techniques, while Groups B and C received either the Mulligan or muscle energy techniques for six weeks, respectively. The study measured the shoulders’ range of motion, posture, and upper-extremity disabilities. Outcome measurements were taken at three different time points: baseline, post-intervention, and at eight-week follow-up. Results: All the interventions significantly improved the study outcomes. The combination of the Mulligan and muscle energy techniques was significantly better than a single intervention. Mulligan mobilization was superior to the muscle energy techniques in terms of improving the shoulders’ range of motion and disability. The interventions showed a significant effect pre-post-treatment and pre-follow-up but not post-follow-up. Conclusions: The Mulligan mobilization and muscle energy techniques have been found beneficial in improving the postural changes and shoulder outcomes after breast cancer surgery with axillary dissection. The superior effectiveness of the combined interventions points out the importance of integrating multiple therapeutic approaches for optimal outcomes. Regular examination and long-term follow-up assessment are important for studying the effect of rehabilitation interventions in people after the late stages of breast surgery.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".