Comparison of diadynamic current, interferential current and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation therapies in patients with chronic low back pain

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.authorscopusid57215904730
dc.authorscopusid57189598520
dc.contributor.authorUysal, Alper
dc.contributor.authorGüntel, Murat
dc.date.accessioned2024-09-19T15:45:32Z
dc.date.available2024-09-19T15:45:32Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.departmentHatay Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractThis study aims to compare the effects of diadynamic current (DDC), interferential current (IFC), and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) therapies on pain and disability levels in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Patients with chronic low back pain between the ages of 18-65 were included in the study. The patients were divided into three groups. The first group received DDC, the second group IFC, and the third group TENS. The patients were evaluated in terms of pain and disability levels before the treatment, the 0th day after the treatment, and the 1st month after the treatment. Thus, these three treatment modalities were compared in terms of their effectiveness. A total of 83 patients were included in the study. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of age, gender, BMI, disease duration, pain, and disability levels of the patients before treatment. A statistically significant difference was found between the 0th day before and after the treatment and the 1st month before and after the treatment in terms of pain and disability levels in all three groups. The VAS scores of the individuals in the IFC group were significantly lower on the 0th day and 1st month after the treatment than in the DDC and TENS groups. Although there was no statistically significant difference, when looked at clinically, the RMDQ scores of the individuals in the IFC group tended to decrease more than those in the DDC and TENS groups. All three treatment modalities are effective in patients with CLBP. However, IFC seems to be superior. © 2022 Ondokuz Mayis Universitesi. All rights reserved.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.52142/omujecm.39.4.29
dc.identifier.endpage1082en_US
dc.identifier.issn1309-4483
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85142219143en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ4en_US
dc.identifier.startpage1078en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.52142/omujecm.39.4.29
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12483/14751
dc.identifier.volume39en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherOndokuz Mayis Universitesien_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Experimental and Clinical Medicine (Turkey)en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectchronic low back painen_US
dc.subjectdiadynamic currenten_US
dc.subjectinterferential currenten_US
dc.subjecttranscutaneous electrical nerve stimulationen_US
dc.titleComparison of diadynamic current, interferential current and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation therapies in patients with chronic low back painen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu