Skip to main content

Table 3 Comparison of pain, pressure pain threshold, timed ‘up and go’, muscle strength, and range of motion between both groups

From: The effect of mobilization with movement on pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized double-blind controlled trial

 Immediately after interventionAfter 2 days
VariablesGroupChange from baseline mean (95% CI)Difference in mean change (95% CI)p-valueChange from baseline mean (95% CI)Difference in mean change (95% CI)p-value
VAS (cm)MWM
Sham
−2.7 (−3.1, − 2.2)
− 0.5 (− 0.9, − 0.0)
− 2.2 (− 2.8, − 1.6)< 0.001*− 0.9 (− 1.5, − 0.3)
0.1 (− 0.5, 0.7)
−1.0 (− 1.8, − 0.1)0.026*
PPT knee (kPa)MWM
Sham
185 (131, 240)
10 (− 45, 64)
176 (97, 254)< 0.001*65 (29, 102)
27 (− 9, 63)
39 (− 14, 91)0.142
PPT shoulder (kPa)MWM
Sham
209 (155, 263)
− 3 (−57, 51)
212 (136, 288)< 0.001*106 (58, 154)
− 2 (− 49, 46)
107 (40, 175)0.003*
TUG (seconds)MWM
Sham
−1.6 (2.0, − 1.2)
0.0 (− 0.4, 0.4)
−1.6 (− 2.1, − 1.1)< 0.001*− 0.9 (− 1.3, − 0.5)
− 0.0 (− 0.4, 0.4)
−0.9 (− 1.4, − 0.4)0.001*
HHD knee flexion (kg)MWM
Sham
2.5 (2.0, 3.0)
0.5 (− 0.1, 1.0)
2 (1.3, 2.7)< 0.001*1.1 (0.6, 1.6)
0.2 (− 0.4, 0.7)
0.9 (0.2, 1.7)0.018*
HHD knee extension (kg)MWM
Sham
6.0 (5.0, 7.1)
0.4 (−0.7, 1.5)
5.7 (4.1, 7.2)< 0.001*3.3 (2.7, 4.0)
0.3 (−0.3, 1.0)
2.9 (2.1, 3.9)< 0.001*
ROM knee flexion (°)MWM
Sham
15.1 (12.9, 17.4)
2.4 (0.2, 4.6)
12.8 (9.6, 15.9)< 0.001*10.2 (7.7, 12.7)
1.9 (− 0.6, 4.4)
8.3 (4.7, 11.9)< 0.001*
ROM knee extension (°)MWM
Sham
−0.6 (−1.2, − 0.1)
0.1 (− 0.5, 0.7)
−0.8 (− 1.6, 0.1)0.067−0.3 (− 0.9, 0.3)
− 0.0 (− 0.6, 0.5)
−0.3 (− 1.1, 0.5)0.499
  1. CI Confidence interval, HHD Hand-held dynamometer, MWM Mobilization with movement, ROM Range of motion, PPT Pressure pain threshold, TUG Timed “Up and Go”, VAS Visual analogue scale
  2. *Significance difference (p < 0.05)