To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

Neurodynamic vs. Carpal Bone Mobilization Manual Therapy for Chronic Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Author Verified
Ace Report Cover
August 2022

Neurodynamic vs. Carpal Bone Mobilization Manual Therapy for Chronic Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

Vol: 279| Issue: 1| Number:5| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:1
Journal Level of Evidence:1

Comparison of Two Manual Therapy Programs, including Tendon Gliding Exercises as a Common Adjunct, While Managing the Participants with Chronic Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

Pain Res Manag. 2022; 2022: 1975803.

Contributing Authors:
FJ Sheereen B Sarkar P Sahay MA Shaphe AH Alghadir A Iqbal T Ali F Ahmad

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

Synopsis

Thirty patients with chronic carpal tunnel syndrome were randomized to receive 3 weeks of manual therapy with the neurodynamic technique (n=15) or carpal bone mobilization technique (n=15), in addition to tendon gliding exercises. Outcomes of interest included pain intensity on a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) for symptom severity and functional status, gr...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue