ABSTRACT
Proprioception is significantly impaired in knee osteoarthritis (KOA), contributing to reduced functionality. Strength training (ST) is essential in KOA by improving muscle strength, although it may also be effective in improving proprioception. The purpose was to determine the effect of ST on knee proprioception in KOA patients. Pubmed, CINAHL, Scopus, WOS, and PEDro were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (inception to March 2023). Comparisons for ST were physical exercise different from ST, non-exercise-based interventions, and no intervention. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale, and risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane tool. Meta-analyses were performed by comparison groups using the standardized mean difference (SMD) (Hedge's g) with random effects models, also considering subgroups by proprioception tests. Finally, six RCTs were included. The mean PEDro score was 6.3, and the highest proportion of biases corresponds to performance, selection, and detection. The meta-analysis indicated that only when compared with non-intervention, ST significantly improved knee proprioception for the joint position sense (JPS) (active + passive), JPS (passive), and threshold to detect passive motion (TTDPM) subgroups (g â= â-1.33 [-2.33, -0.32], g = â-2.29 [-2.82, -1.75] and g â= â-2.40 [-4.23, -0.58], respectively). However, in the knee JPS (active) subgroup, ST was not significant (g â= â-0.72 [-1.84, 0.40]). In conclusion, ST improves knee proprioception compared to non-intervention. However, due to the paucity of studies and diversity of interventions, more evidence is needed to support the effectiveness of ST. Future RCTs may address the limitations of this review to advance knowledge about proprioceptive responses to ST and contribute to clinical practice.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Chronic neck pain is one of the main reasons for visiting a healthcare professional. In recent years, it has been shown that upper cervical restriction may be a factor involved in neck pain. OBJECTIVE: To compare the immediate effects of a real cervical mobilization technique versus a sham cervical mobilization technique in patients with chronic neck pain and upper cervical restriction. METHODS: This was a randomised, controlled, double-blind clinical trial. Twenty-eight patients with chronic neck pain were recruited and divided into two groups (14 = real cervical mobilization; 14 = sham mobilization). Both groups received a single 5-minute treatment session. Upper cervical range motion, flexion-rotation test, deep cervical activation and pressure pain threshold were measured. RESULTS: In the between-groups comparison, statistically significant differences were found in favour of the real cervical mobilization group in upper cervical extension (p= 0.003), more restricted side of flexion-rotation test (p< 0.001) and less restricted side of flexion-rotation test (p= 0.007) and in the pressure pain threshold of the right trapezius (p= 0.040) and right splenius (p= 0.049). No differences in deep muscle activation were obtained. CONCLUSION: The real cervical mobilization group generates improvements in upper cervical spine movement and pressure pain threshold of right trapezius and right splenius compared to the sham group in patients with chronic neck pain and upper cervical restriction.
