Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorShaik, Junaid
dc.contributor.authorSood, Kanwal Deep
dc.date.accessioned2009-06-11T13:16:42Z
dc.date.available2009-06-11T13:16:42Z
dc.date.issued2008
dc.identifier.other311136
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10321/434
dc.descriptionDissertation submitted in partial compliance with the requirements for the Master's Degree in Technology: Chiropractic, Durban University of Technology, 2008.en_US
dc.description.abstractTo compare trunk flexion and lateral flexion range of motion (ROM) pre-post intervention. To compare the bowling speed of Action Cricket fast bowlers pre-post intervention. To determine the correlation between change in bowling speed immediately post-intervention to change in trunk flexion and lateral flexion ROM immediately post-intervention. To determine the association between change in bowling speed immediately post-intervention and the subjects’ perception of change in bowling speed. Methods: Forty asymptomatic Action Cricket fast bowlers were divided into four groups of ten each. Group 1 received lumbar spine manipulation, Group 2 received thoracic spine manipulation, Group 3 received combined thoracic and lumbar spine manipulation and Group 4 received the sham laser intervention (placebo). Pre- and post-intervention trunk flexion and lateral flexion ROM and bowling speed were measured using a digital inclinometer and a SpeedTracTM Speed Sport Radar. The subjects’ perception of a change in bowling speed post-intervention was also recorded. SPSS version 15.0 was used to analyse the data. Two-tailed tests were used in all cases. Results: Trunk flexion and lateral flexion increased significantly (p < 0.05) post-spinal manipulation. There was a significant increase in bowling speed post-thoracic (p = 0.042) and post-combined manipulation (p < 0.000). A significant yet weak positive correlation (p = 0.003; r = 0.451) was seen in change in bowling speed and change in thoracic flexion and lateral flexion. There was no significant difference in the percentage subjective change by intervention group (p = 0.217). Conclusions: Spinal manipulation is a valid intervention for short-term increase in bowling speed.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipNational Research Funden_US
dc.format.extent90 pen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectChiropracticen_US
dc.subjectSpinal adjustmenten_US
dc.subjectCricket playersen_US
dc.subjectCricket--Bowlingen_US
dc.titleThe immediate effect of lumbar spine manipulation, thoracic spine manipulation, combination lumbar and thoracic spine manipulation and sham laser on bowling speed in action cricket fast bowlersen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.dut-rims.pubnumDUT-000430


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record