• Türkçe
    • English
  • English 
    • Türkçe
    • English
  • Login
View Item 
  •   [email protected]
  • Fakülteler
  • Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi
  • Ergoterapi
  • Makale Koleksiyonu
  • View Item
  •   [email protected]
  • Fakülteler
  • Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi
  • Ergoterapi
  • Makale Koleksiyonu
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Comparison of two different electrotherapy methods in low back pain treatment

Access

info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess

Date

2020

Author

Kutlu Özkaraoğlu, Dilanur
Tarakçı, Devrim
Algun, Zeliha Candan

Metadata

Show full item record

Citation

Kutlu Özkaraoğlu, D., Tarakçı, D. ve Algun, Z. C. (2020). Comparison of two different electrotherapy methods in low back pain treatment. Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation, 33(2),193-199. http://doi.org/10.3233/BMR-181199

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of High Intensity Laser Therapy (HILT) and Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) in low back pain (LBP). METHODS: Forty patients aged between 18 to 60 were included in this study. The patients were randomized into two groups as TENS (Group I) and HILT (Group II). The severity of pain was measured by Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and the range of motion (ROM) of the joint was measured by goniometer. The Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) was used to assess the effect of LBP on daily living activities, and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) was used to assess depression. All patients were taken into physical therapy program for 5 days a week for a total of 20 sessions. Patients in Group I received ultrasound, hot pack and HILT, while the patients in Group II received ultrasound, hot pack and TENS. RESULTS: In the comparison of post-treatment improvements, among all parameters only VAS score had a significant difference in favor of Group I. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated that HILT is more effective than TENS in terms of pain reduction and that HILT can be used as an alternative to TENS.

WoS Q Kategorisi

Q4

xmlui.dri2xhtml.METS-1.0.item-scopusquality

Q2

Source

Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

Volume

33

Issue

2

URI

http://doi.org/10.3233/BMR-181199
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12511/5055

Collections

  • Makale Koleksiyonu [34]
  • Makale Koleksiyonu [108]
  • PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu [3481]
  • Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu [5318]
  • WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu [5543]



DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
Contact Us | Send Feedback
Theme by 
@mire NV
 

 




| Guide | Contact |

[email protected]

by OpenAIRE
Advanced Search

sherpa/romeo

Browse

All of DSpaceCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsInstitution AuthorORCIDTitlesSubjectsTypeLanguageDepartmentCategoryWoS Q ValueScopus Q ValuePublisherAccess TypeThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsInstitution AuthorORCIDTitlesSubjectsTypeLanguageDepartmentCategoryWoS Q ValueScopus Q ValuePublisherAccess Type

My Account

LoginRegister

Statistics

View Google Analytics Statistics

DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
Contact Us | Send Feedback
Theme by 
@mire NV
 

 


|| Guide || Library || İstanbul Medipol University || OAI-PMH ||

Kütüphane ve Dokümantasyon Daire Başkanlığı, İstabul, Turkey
If you find any errors in content, please contact: [email protected]

Creative Commons License
[email protected] by İstanbul Medipol University Institutional Repository is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 Unported License..

[email protected]:


DSpace 6.2

tarafından İdeal DSpace hizmetleri çerçevesinde özelleştirilerek kurulmuştur.