Clinical trial NCT01911338: Inertial Sensors Used to Learn Manipulation
Official title: EFFECT OF REAL-TIME FEEDBACK THROUGH INERTIAL SENSORS IN LEARNING POSTEROANTERIOR THORACIC MANIPULATION
Study type: INTERVENTIONAL
Overall status: COMPLETED
Phase: NA
Conditions: Medical Education
Keywords: Spinal Manipulation
Teaching
Thoracic Vertebrae
Feedback
Lead sponsor: University of Malaga
Sponsor class: OTHER
First posted: 2013-07-30
Enrollment: 64
Sex: ALL
Minimum age (years): 18
Maximum age (years): 65
Standard ages: ADULT
OLDER_ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: yes
Allocation: RANDOMIZED
Intervention model: CROSSOVER

Brief summary: * Background Context: no studies have been identified to analyse the effect of real time feedback (using inertial sensors) on physiotherapy students learning the art of posterior-anterior thoracic manipulation (PATM).
* Purpose: to study the effect caused by real-time feedback on the learning process for PATM, comparing two undergraduate physiotherapy student groups. Hypothesis: significant differences will exist in the execution parameters of manipulation among students receiving real-time feedback versus those who do not.
* Study Design/Setting: longitudinal, pre-post intervention.
* Patient Sample: Sixty-one undergraduate physiotherapy students were divided randomly into two groups, G1 (n = 31) (group without feedback in real time) and G2 (n = 30) (group with real-time feedback).
* Outcome Measures: time, displacement and velocity and improvement (only between groups) to reach maximum peak, to reach minimum peak from maximum peak, total manipulation time.
* Methods: two groups of physiotherapy students learned PATM, one using a traditional method and the other using real-time feedback (inertial sensor). Measures were obtained pre- and post-intervention. Intragroup pre- and post-intervention and intergroup post-intervention scores were calculated. An analysis of the measures' stability was developed through an ICC (1,2).
* Results: the values of ICC ranged from 0.881 to 0.997. Statistically significant differences were found in all variables analysed (intra- and inter-group) in favour of G2.
* Conclusions: the learning process for posterior-anterior thoracic manipulation is facilitated when the student receives real-time feedback.


Eligibility criteria: Inclusion Criteria:

* Participants did not have any training in manual therapy techniques, especially those involving a high velocity, low amplitude execution.

Exclusion Criteria:

* Refusal to participate in the study

Primary outcomes:
measure: Change from displacement maximum peak (seconds)
timeFrame: baseline; post-education; 24 weeks follow up
measure: Change from Time to reach maximum peak (seconds)
timeFrame: baseline; post-education; 24 weeks follow up
measure: Change from Displacement between maximum and minimum peak (milimitres)
timeFrame: baseline; post-education; 24 weeks follow up
measure: Change from Total manipulation time (seconds)
timeFrame: baseline; post-education; 24 weeks follow up
measure: Change from Velocity to reach maximum peak (degrees per second)
timeFrame: baseline; post-education; 24 weeks follow up
measure: Change from Time to reach peak minimum from maximum peak (seconds)
timeFrame: baseline; post-education; 24 weeks follow up
measure: Change from Velocity to reach minimum peak from maximum peak (degress/second)
timeFrame: baseline; post-education; 24 weeks follow up
Secondary outcomes:
Other outcomes:
Locations:
Study officials:
affiliation: University of Malaga
name: Manuel González-Sánchez, PT, PhD
role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
affiliation: University of Malaga
name: Yves Lenfant, PT
role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
References: