MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392051494 · doi:10.61919/jhrr.v4i1.510

Effectiveness of Myofacial Release versus Proprioceptive Neuro Facilitation Technique on Pain and Range of Motion in Patients with Cervicogenic Headache

2024· article· en· W4392051494 on OpenAlexaff
Ana Yousuf, Dua Qazi, Khadijatul Ain Sandeela, Anum Rasheed, Muhammad Umair Mushtaq

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health and Rehabilitation Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMyofascial pain diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsDigital Payment Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProprioceptionFacilitationCervicogenic headacheMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationRange of motionPhysical therapyPsychologyNeuroscienceAnesthesiaMigraine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Cervicogenic headache is a prevalent condition characterized by headaches caused by cervical musculoskeletal impairments. The effectiveness of Myofascial Release (MFR) and Proprioceptive Neuromuscular Facilitation (PNF) in managing this condition has been explored, with varying outcomes on pain intensity, cervical range of motion (ROM), and functional disability. Objective: To compare the efficacy of MFR and PNF techniques in reducing pain and improving ROM in patients with cervicogenic headache. Methods: This randomized control trial included 30 female participants diagnosed with cervicogenic headache. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either MFR or PNF treatments over a period of 4 weeks, with sessions conducted twice weekly. Outcome measures included pain intensity assessed by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), cervical ROM measured using a universal goniometer, and functional disability evaluated through the Neck Disability Index (NDI). Data were analyzed using SPSS version 25, employing t-tests for within-group comparisons and ANOVA for between-group analyses. Results: Both MFR and PNF groups showed significant improvements post-treatment. The MFR group demonstrated a reduction in VAS scores from 6.73 ± 0.593 to 4.26 ± 0.703 (p<0.001), and the PNF group from 6.73 ± 0.593 to 5.26 ± 0.432 (p<0.001). Cervical ROM and NDI scores also significantly improved in both groups. Comparative analysis revealed MFR to be more effective in enhancing cervical rotation (MFR: 70.13 ± 3.020 to 80.20 ± 2.840; PNF: 60.33 ± 2.690 to 64.06 ± 2.548; p<0.05) and reducing NDI scores (MFR: 48.33 ± 5.56 to 17.53 ± 5.46; PNF: 10.00 ± 2.267 to 8.93 ± 1.667; p<0.001). Conclusion: Both MFR and PNF are effective in treating cervicogenic headache, significantly reducing pain intensity and improving cervical ROM and functional disability. MFR, however, exhibited a superior efficacy in enhancing cervical rotation and reducing NDI scores, suggesting it may offer additional benefits in the management of cervicogenic headache.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health and Rehabilitation ResearchSame topicMyofascial pain diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207