↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of the effectiveness of manual massage, long-wave diathermy, and sham long-wave diathermy for the management of delayed-onset muscle soreness: a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Physiotherapy, January 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#21 of 104)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
24 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparison of the effectiveness of manual massage, long-wave diathermy, and sham long-wave diathermy for the management of delayed-onset muscle soreness: a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Archives of Physiotherapy, January 2020
DOI 10.1186/s40945-019-0073-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lorenzo Visconti, Corrado Forni, Rudi Coser, Marco Trucco, Elisa Magnano, Gianpiero Capra

Abstract

Delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS) is a specific symptom that typically arises after unaccustomed eccentric muscular effort. It increases typically 24-72 h post-exercise and can affect physical performance. The pathophysiology of DOMS remains unclear, although it seems to be related to the remodeling phase of myofibrils. Different types of treatments have been proposed to minimize DOMS after exercise; however, no clear gold standard treatment exists. Among the most popular and easy-to-apply treatments, manual massage is often performed by clinicians and has been documented to be effective in reducing symptoms. For several years, long-wave diathermy (LWD) has been performed to manage musculoskeletal complaints, such as DOMS; however, no studies have reported its efficacy thus far.This study aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of LWD, sham LWD, and manual massage in participants with lower limb DOMS. Participants with lower limb DOMS were included in the study. They were randomly assigned to undergo real LWD, sham LWD, or manual massage. The Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) score was the primary outcome, and the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) Scale score was the secondary outcome. Outcomes were collected before and immediately after the treatment. Analysis of variance was performed to compare the post-treatment NPRS value variability among the groups and to compare the pre- and post-treatment NPRS differences among the groups. No clinically relevant differences were observed regarding the NPRS value variability among real LWD, sham LWD and manual massage groups. Differences were observed in the PGIC Scale scores. Future studies are needed to have a better understanding about the treatment of DOMS in clinical practice. The trial was registered on 29th February 2016 in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02693678).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 19%
Unspecified 4 8%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 4 8%
Lecturer 3 6%
Other 12 23%
Unknown 15 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 15%
Sports and Recreations 8 15%
Unspecified 4 8%
Physics and Astronomy 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 16 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 October 2020.
All research outputs
#1,667,791
of 19,225,771 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Physiotherapy
#21
of 104 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,276
of 407,564 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Physiotherapy
#6
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,225,771 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 104 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 407,564 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.