Table 4 Results and conclusions of studies regarding pain intensity
Study | Characterictics | Duration of treatment | Period of follow-up | Control group post-intervention (mean ± standard deviation) | Experimental group post-intervention (mean ± standard deviation) | Results | Conclusions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kumar et al. [19] | n = 40 Unilateral patellofemoral pain syndrome. Non-vibrational FR. Combined with a swiss ball. VAS (10 cm) | 4 weeks Total of 56 sessions | Short time follow-up | 4.05 ± 0.759 | 1.65 ± 0.671 | MD 2.4 (95% CI 1.94 to 2.86) in favor of the experimental group | Author: Foam combined with swiss ball reduced pain. Review: Foam combined with swiss ball reduced the intensity of pain. |
Ozsoy et al. [21] | n = 42 NSLBP. Non-vibrational FR. Combined with CSE + hot pack + TENS. VAS (10 cm) | 6 weeks Total of 18 sessions | Medium time follow-up | VAS at rest: 1.30 ± 1.13 VAS during activity: 3.37 ± 1.01 | VAS at rest: 1.50 ± 1.30 VAS during activity: 3.73 ± 1.51 | VAS at rest: MD -0.2 (95% CI -0.96 to 0.56) no statistically significant difference between groups VAS during activity: MD -0.36 (95% CI -1.16 to 0.44) no statistically significant difference between groups | Author: The current study suggests that myofascial release technique with a roller massager combined with core stabilization exercises can be a better choice in the treatment of NSLBP in elderly. Review: no statistically significant difference between groups for intensity of pain at rest and during activity. |
Cabrera-Martos et al. [23] | N = 40 Chronic neck pain. Non-vibrational FR. Combined with active upper limb neurodynamic exercises. VAS (10 cm) | 4 weeks Total of 12 sessions | Short time follow-up | 6.00 ± 2.00 | 4.00 ± 2.25 | MD 2 (95% CI 0.64 to 3.36) in favor of experimental group post-intervention | Author: A 4-week self-administered program for patients with chronic neck pain was effective in reducing the presence of active trigger point. Pain severity, average pain, and some aspects of functionality also improved significantly after the intervention. Review: Non-vibrational FR Combined with active upper limb neurodynamic exercises reduce intensity of pain. |
Ranbhor et al. [20] | n = 50 Plantar fasciitis. Non-vibrational FR. VAS (10 Cm) | Total of 1 session | Immediately time | 2.748 ± 1.68 | 2.496 ± 1.16 | MD 0.252 (95% CI -0.57 to 1.07) no statistically significant difference between groups | Author: stretching and foam rolling techniques helped in reducing pain and increasing the ROM. However, the effectiveness of foam rolling was superior to stretching in terms of increase in the pain pressure threshold at gastrocnemius and soleus. Review: no statistically significant difference between groups. |
Hameed et al. [22] | n = 32 Plantar fasciitis. Non-vibrational FR. Combined with ultrasound therapy. VAS (NR) | 2 weeks Total of 10 sessions | Short time follow-up | 3.81 ± 1.222 | 4.2 ± 1.294 | MD -0.39 (95% CI -1.30 to 0.52) no statistically significant difference between groups | Author: Foam and tennis ball reduced pain, no statistically significant difference between groups. Review: no statistically significant difference between groups. |
Yokochi et al. [24] | n = 30 Total knee arthroplasty resulting from osteoarthritis. Non-vibrational FR. Combined with Regular physical therapy. VAS (0-100 mm) | 3 weeks Total of 36 sessions | Short time follow-up | VAS at rest: 5.3 ± 13.6 VAS during stretch: 17.7 ± 15.8 | VAS at rest: 1.3 ± 3.0 VAS during stretch: 12.4 ± 19.7 | VAS at rest: MD 4 (95% CI -3.37 to 11.37) no statistically significant difference between groups VAS during stretch: MD 5.3 (95% CI -8.06 to 18.66) no statistically significant difference between groups | Author: Compared with the control group, the FR intervention program significantly improved knee pain at stretching (knee flexion), but there was no synergistic effect on the other parameters. Review: no statistically significant difference between groups. |