Effect of manual diaphragmatic release on ventilatory function and functional capacity in elderly type 2 diabetic women: A randomised controlled trial.
Adding manual diaphragmatic release to aerobic training may improve ventilatory function and quality of life in elderly women with type 2 diabetes.
Where it sits
this study against the rest of the slu-pp-332 (exercise mimetic) corpusSummary and findings
This study measured the effects of manual diaphragmatic release (MDR) combined with aerobic training (AT) on ventilatory function, functional capacity, and quality of life in elderly women with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Sixty participants were randomly assigned to either the MDR group or a control group receiving AT alone over 8 weeks. The results indicated that the MDR group showed improvements in various outcome measures compared to the control group.
Abstract
<h4>Background</h4>Elderly individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) often experience reduced ventilatory function and functional capacity, which negatively impact their quality of life (QoL), yet effective non-pharmacological interventions remain limited.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine the effect of manual diaphragmatic release (MDR) added to aerobic training (AT) on ventilatory function, functional capacity, and QoL, compared to AT alone in elderly women with T2DM.<h4>Methods</h4>Sixty elderly type 2 diabetic women were randomly assigned in equal numbers to either the MDR or control group. For 8 weeks, the MDR group received MDR in addition to AT, while the control group received AT alone. Outcomes included measures of forced vital capacity (FVC) and total lung capacity (TLC), 6 min walk test (6MWT), and Diabetic Quality of Life Questionnaire (DQoL). Between-group differences were analysed by ANCOVA.<h4>Results</h4>At the end of the study, there were significant group effects for all outcome measures ( p<0.05 ). Adjusted between-group differences favoured the MDR group for FVC (mean difference=3.17% ; 95% CI: 1.07-5.27), TLC (mean difference=2.28% ; 95% CI: 1.22-3.33), 6MWT distance (mean difference=22.58 m; 95% CI: 10.17-34.99), and DQoL score (mean difference=0.94 ; 95% CI: 0.31-1.57).<h4>Conclusion</h4>Adding MDR to AT is more beneficial than AT only for enhancing ventilatory function, functional capacity and QoL in such elderly type 2 diabetic women. However, further studies with larger sample sizes and longer intervention durations are warranted to confirm these findings.
Background
Elderly individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) often experience reduced ventilatory function and functional capacity, negatively impacting their quality of life (QoL). Previous research has shown limited effective non-pharmacological interventions for this population. This study aims to explore the potential benefits of manual diaphragmatic release (MDR) in conjunction with aerobic training (AT) for improving these outcomes.
Methods
The study was a randomized controlled trial involving sixty elderly women with T2DM, who were equally assigned to either the MDR group or a control group receiving AT alone. The intervention lasted for 8 weeks, with outcomes measured including forced vital capacity (FVC), total lung capacity (TLC), 6-minute walk test (6MWT), and Diabetic Quality of Life Questionnaire (DQoL). Between-group differences were analyzed using ANCOVA.
Results
At the end of the study, significant group effects were observed for all outcome measures (p<0.05). The MDR group showed an adjusted mean difference of 3.17% in FVC (95% CI: 1.07-5.27), 2.28% in TLC (95% CI: 1.22-3.33), 22.58 m in 6MWT distance (95% CI: 10.17-34.99), and 0.94 in DQoL score (95% CI: 0.31-1.57).
Interpretation
The findings suggest that adding MDR to AT may enhance ventilatory function, functional capacity, and QoL in elderly women with T2DM. However, while the results are statistically significant, the clinical significance of the effect sizes should be evaluated in the context of practical application. Limitations such as the small sample size and short duration of the intervention may confound the conclusions drawn from this study.
Key findings
- mean difference=3.17% FVC; 95% CI: 1.07-5.27, p<0.05
- mean difference=2.28% TLC; 95% CI: 1.22-3.33, p<0.05
- mean difference=22.58 m in 6MWT distance; 95% CI: 10.17-34.99, p<0.05
- mean difference=0.94 in DQoL score; 95% CI: 0.31-1.57, p<0.05
Limitations
- small sample size of n=60
- 8-week intervention duration may not capture long-term effects
- single-site study limits generalizability
- no mention of blinding or randomization details