Selected article for: "control group and experimental group"

Author: Chun, Jin-Young; Seo, Jeong-Hwan; Park, Sung-Hee; Won, Yu Hui; Kim, Gi-Wook; Moon, Sung-Jun; Ko, Myoung-Hwan
Title: Effects of 3-Dimensional Lumbar Stabilization Training for Balance in Chronic Hemiplegic Stroke Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial
  • Document date: 2016_12_30
  • ID: k09j0t98_14
    Snippet: The experimental and control groups comprised 15 subjects each. However, one patient from the experimental group failed due to the aggravation of gout in the ankle joint, and a follow-up loss in the control group occurred due to a MERS coronavirus outbreak. Fourteen subjects in each group completed the clinical experiment. Table 1 shows the distribution of sex, age, average education, www.e-arm.org duration of stroke, and hemiplegic side in both.....
    Document: The experimental and control groups comprised 15 subjects each. However, one patient from the experimental group failed due to the aggravation of gout in the ankle joint, and a follow-up loss in the control group occurred due to a MERS coronavirus outbreak. Fourteen subjects in each group completed the clinical experiment. Table 1 shows the distribution of sex, age, average education, www.e-arm.org duration of stroke, and hemiplegic side in both groups. The demographics in the two groups did not show significant differences. The unaffected lateral FRT showed significantly higher results in the Biodex Balance System training group; whereas the rest of the tests showed no significant differences between the two groups ( Table 2) . Table 3 shows that the experimental group showed significant improvements in all tests-BBS (p=0.001), TUG (p=0.001), forward FRT (p=0.001), affected lateral FRT (p=0.001), and unaffected lateral FRT (p=0.002)-when the values before and after training were compared in each group. The control group also showed significant improvements in the same tests. However, the results for the 10mWT showed only significant improvements in the experimental group (11.38±3.0 to 10.12±2.47 seconds; p=0.01); whereas the control group did not show significant improvements. The improvement levels of the trunk strength (BPR score) for the experimental group using Spine Balance 3D system's evaluation program showed (Table 3 ). In addition, among the three conditions used in Biodex

    Search related documents:
    Co phrase search for related documents
    • improvement level and significant improvement: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24
    • improvement level and significant improvement show: 1, 2, 3
    • improvement level and training group: 1, 2
    • MERS coronavirus and significant difference: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
    • MERS coronavirus and significant improvement: 1, 2
    • MERS coronavirus outbreak and significant difference: 1, 2
    • second experimental group and training group: 1
    • significant difference and training group: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28
    • significant difference and training value: 1, 2
    • significant improvement and test rest: 1
    • significant improvement and training group: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28
    • significant improvement and training value: 1
    • significant improvement and trunk strength: 1, 2, 3
    • training group and trunk strength: 1