Physical Therapy Summary

1129 Words3 Pages

Critical Review # 1
Ibrahim, Eid & Moawd (2014) conducted a randomized controlled study to determine if there were differences between the outcomes of children receiving a selected physical therapy treatment and whole body vibration(WBV) and children receiving a selected physical therapy alone (control group). The measurements tested were isometric strength of the knee extensors (weak and strong legs), spasticity, walking speed, walking balance, and gross motor function before and after a 12 - week intervention program. The inclusion criteria were children with spastic diplegia from both sexes ages ranging from 8 to 12 years old, who were ambulatory (with or without walking aids), able to follow instructions, with a 1 to 2 degree of spasticity, …show more content…

For isometric strength of knee extensors, a handheld dynamometer (Nicholas Manual Muscle Tester Model 011160) was used. Children were seated with knees flexed at 90 degrees and resistance was given by researcher 5cm proximal to the lateral malleolus. Resistance was provided gradually allowing the children to recruit maximum amount of muscle fibers. Three attempts were recorded averaging the second and third attempt scores. The modified Ashworth scale was used to measure spasticity for hip adductors, knee extensors, and ankle plantar flexors. For the walking speed evaluation, the investigators used the Six-minute walking test or 6MWT, with ICC = .80 -.85 and r= .86-.90 for this population (Leunkeu, Shephard, & Ahmaidij, 2012). One practice session was provided days before the test date to reduce the effect of learning. The test consists of children walking in a hallway as far as possible for six minutes. Instructions were standardized guidelines from the American Thoracic Society (2002). Walking balance was tested by using the Timed Up and Go test (TUG) with ICC = 0.99 and r = 0.681 in children with CP (Nicolini -Pannison & Donatio, 2013). The time required to complete the task (getting up from arm chair, walking to a line on the floor 3 meters away, turning around and sitting down) was recorded. Gross motor function was evaluated by using the GMFM – 88 (Test- re test and inter-rater reliability = 0.99). …show more content…

Study limitations included small sample size, lack of information regarding assent from participating children, insufficient validity of the Ashworth Scale to measure spasticity (Pandya, Price, Barnes & Johnson, 2003), convenience sample: all children from the same source, lack of definition of regular organized physical activities mentioned in the inclusion criteria , no isolation of the WBV intervention in the experimental group ((they also received a PT program), and potential confounding variable of ambulation differences (with and without devices) non-specified in each group

More about Physical Therapy Summary

Open Document