Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10321/165
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.advisorWhite, Horace Lindsay-
dc.contributor.authorShearar, Kirstin Anneen_US
dc.date.accessioned2008-01-29T13:50:43Z
dc.date.available2008-01-29T13:50:43Z
dc.date.issued2003-
dc.identifier.otherDIT98699-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10321/165-
dc.descriptionA dissertation presented in partial compliance with the requirements for the Master's Degree in Technology: Chiropractic, Durban Institute of Technology, Durban, South Africa, 2003.en_US
dc.description.abstractLow back pain is a significant health problem that has had a major impact on quality of life and on health care costs (Weiner, et al. 2000:450). Schwarzer, et al. (1995) established the sacroiliac joint to be a significant source of pain in patients with chronic low back pain. Bernard and Kirkaldy-Willis (1987:2107-2130) established the sacroiliac joint to be the primary source of low back pain in 22.5% of 1293 patients presenting with back pain. According to a review article by Hendler, et al. (1995:169), “manipulation provides dramatic relief” in cases of sacroiliac syndrome. Little research, however, has been done regarding instrument manipulation and it’s effect on acute, chronic or acute on chronic sacroiliac syndrome. Osterbauer and De Boer, et al. (1993) found a significant decrease in Visual Analogue Scale and Oswestry scores following treatment using instrument manipulation for sacroiliac joint syndrome. They also noted a reduction in the number of pain provocation tests applied to the research subjects. “Unless reliability and validity of assessments and effectiveness of treatment procedures can be demonstrated, clinicians should temper their claims of measurement of, and direct effects on, the sacroiliac joint” (Walker 1992:914). The study design was a randomised, omparative clinical trial. Sixty voluntary subjects were accepted onto the trial; each diagnosed as having acute on chronic sacroiliac joint syndrome, and divided into two groups of thirty subjects. Each subject received five treatments within a three-week period. The subjects in group one received manipulation using the Diversified Technique of manipulation and those in group two received instrument manipulation using the “Activator Adjusting Instrument”.en_US
dc.format.extent91 pen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectChiropracticen_US
dc.subjectBackacheen_US
dc.subject.lcshManipulation (Therapeutics)en_US
dc.subject.lcshSacroiliac jointen_US
dc.titleThe relative effectiveness of manual manipulation versus manipulation using the activator adjusting instrument in the management of acute on chronic sacroiliac syndromeen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.description.levelMen_US
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.51415/10321/165-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.openairetypeThesis-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.fulltextWith Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextopen-
Appears in Collections:Theses and dissertations (Health Sciences)
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat
Shearar_2003.pdf428.96 kBAdobe PDFThumbnail
View/Open
Show simple item record

Page view(s) 20

1,359
checked on Dec 22, 2024

Download(s)

370
checked on Dec 22, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.