Immediate effects of various physical therapeutic modalities on cervical myofascial pain and trigger-point sensitivity Chuen-Ru Hou, PhD, Li-Chen Tsai, MS, Kuang-Feng Cheng, MS, Kao-Chi Chung, PhD, Chang-Zern Hong, MD Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Volume 83, Issue 10, Pages 1406-1414 (October 2002) DOI: 10.1053/apmr.2002.34834 Copyright © 2002 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions
Fig. 1 The interaction effect of pressure and duration for (A) pain threshold ratio (IThC), (B) pain tolerance ratio (IToC), and (C) VAS ratio (IVC). Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2002 83, 1406-1414DOI: (10.1053/apmr.2002.34834) Copyright © 2002 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions
Fig. 2 Correlation scatterplots for pretreatment in stage 1: (A) pain threshold correlated positively with pain tolerance (R =.830, P<.01; y =1.20x +0.48), (B) VAS correlated negatively with pain threshold (R =−.250, P<.05; y =−.40x+6.75); and (C) VAS correlated negatively with pain tolerance (R =−.305, P<.01; y =−.33x). Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2002 83, 1406-1414DOI: (10.1053/apmr.2002.34834) Copyright © 2002 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions
Fig. 3 Correlation scatterplots for posttreatment in stage 1: (A) pain threshold correlated positively with pain tolerance (R =.802, P<.01; y =1.04x +0.96); (B) VAS correlated negatively with pain threshold (R =−.314, P<.01; y =−.38x+5.39); and (C) VAS is negatively correlated with pain tolerance (R =−.280, P<.01; y =−.29x +5.35). Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2002 83, 1406-1414DOI: (10.1053/apmr.2002.34834) Copyright © 2002 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions
Fig. 4 Means and SDs of pain threshold ratio (IThC) for the 6 treatment groups in second stage. * P<.05 (significance for multiple comparison with the Tukey HSD test). Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2002 83, 1406-1414DOI: (10.1053/apmr.2002.34834) Copyright © 2002 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions
Fig. 5 Means and SDs of pain tolerance ratio (IToC) for the 6 treatment groups in second stage. * P<.05 (significance for multiple comparison with the Tukey HSD test). Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2002 83, 1406-1414DOI: (10.1053/apmr.2002.34834) Copyright © 2002 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions
Fig. 6 Means and SDs of VAS ratio (IVC) for the 6 treatment groups in second stage. * P<.05 (significance for multiple comparison with the Tukey HSD test). Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2002 83, 1406-1414DOI: (10.1053/apmr.2002.34834) Copyright © 2002 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions