EFFECTIVENESS OF PNF STRETCHING AND CYCLIC STRETCHING OF CALF TIGHTNESS ON COLLEGE GOING GIRLS

Background: Flexibility helps with injury prevention, the reduction of soreness following a workout, and a general sense of well-being. There are different stretching techniques and protocols for improvements in calf extensibility and flexibility. The purpose of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of two techniques i.e. CYCLIC and PNF stretching which improves calf flexibility. This study was done to find the effectiveness of calf Cyclic and PNF stretching technique to improve calf flexibility. Methods: 30 subjects with age group 21-22 years were randomly allocated to 2 groups equally. Group 1(n=15) were given CYCLIC and group 2(n=15) were given PNF stretching technique. Plantar flexion was used to measure the calf tightness which was done before and after the treatment. Treatment was given for 7 days and on the 7th day the calf tightness was again measured. Results: The mean difference of the CYCLIC is 4.6 and mean difference of PNF is 4.7 which indicate that CYCLIC and PNF both are effective to improve calf flexibility but PNF is more effective than CYCLIC to improve calf flexibility. Conclusion: The neurophysiological basis of PNF, stating that the excitatory efficient of the neuromuscular spindle or the inhibitory afferent of the Golgi tendon organ (GTO) or both are responsible for the effects. During PNF stretch and isometric contraction of stretched agonists for extended period may cause activation of its neuromuscular spindle. The increase in tension created during the isometric contraction of the pre – lengthened agonist contracts concentrically. Both the fascia & the spindle of the agonist adjust to the nearly lengthened position. These impulses travel via causing post synaptic inhibition of the motor neuron to agonist increasing the tension from the GTO. These impulses can override the impulses coming from the neuromuscular spindles arousing the muscle to reflexly resist to the change in length, thus helping in lengthening the muscle.PNF stretching is more effective than cyclic stretching

Cancer and contraception

As a result of advances in cancer diagnosis and treatment, young women within the reproductive-aged group are now more likely to survive cancer. Reproductive-aged women with cancer may be interested in deferring pregnancy either temporarily or permanently at cancer diagnosis, during therapy or after treatment. Currently, there are limited guidelines to aide clinicians in managing the contraceptive needs in this special population. After reviewing the evidence regarding the safety and efficacy of available methods of contraception for women who have been diagnosed with cancer, the Society of Family Planning recommends that women of childbearing age who are being treated for cancer avoid combined hormonal contraceptive methods (containing estrogen and progestin) when possible because they may further increase the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) (Level A). The copper T380A intrauterine device, a highly effective, reversible, long-acting, hormone-free method, should be considered the first-line contraceptive option for women with a history of breast cancer (Level A), although for women being treated with tamoxifen, the levonorgestrel-containing intrauterine system (IUS) which decreases endometrial proliferation may be preferable (Level B). Women who develop anemia may benefit from use of a progestin-containing contraceptive (Level A). Women who develop osteopenia or osteoporosis following chemotherapy should avoid the progestin-only contraceptive injection (Level B). More information is needed in many areas. There are insufficient data to evaluate the risk of VTE when progestin-only contraceptives are used by women at high risk of VTE. Information is also needed on whether the levonorgestrel-containing IUS affects the risk of breast cancer recurrence and whether hormonal contraceptives affect the risk of breast cancer among women who have received chest wall, or "mantle field," radiation. Finally, studies of the safety and effectiveness of IUS use by women who are immunosuppressed and studies of whether progestin-only contraceptives affect the risk of fracture among cancer survivors or, more generally, women with osteopenia would be useful

Pregnancy intention screening tools: a randomized trial to assess perceived helpfulness with communication about reproductive goals

Abstract Background Federal and clinical guidelines support integration of reproductive life planning in the care of female patients to aid in the reduction of unplanned pregnancies. A multitude of tools have been created to help in the counseling component, but further research is needed regarding how and whether they facilitate patient-provider communication. Research We performed a randomized controlled trial to evaluate if patients report whether a detailed or simple pregnancy intention screening tool is helpful for communication of reproductive life plans. We compared a novel reproductive counseling aid, the Family Planning Quotient (FPQ), to a simple tool based on the One Key Question® (OKQ). Providers also evaluated whether they thought the tool used at the visit was helpful. We randomized 93 patients to complete a survey including identical demographic questions and either the FPQ or OKQ reproductive counseling tool. We did not provide further instructions to either the patient or provider. Following the visits, we collected 84 subject evaluations and 79 provider evaluations. A similar proportion of subjects using either reproductive counseling tool found it helpful in communicating their reproductive life plans to their providers (approximately 66%), but there was no difference between the two tools studied. Less than half of providers reported that the FPQ tool was helpful (FPQ: 16/43, 37.2% versus OKQ: 18/36, 50%; p = 0.25). Conclusion Two-thirds of patients reported either a detailed or simple reproductive plan screening tool was helpful to facilitate communication with their provider, but only half of providers found either tool helpful. Use of reproductive screening tools should be followed by patient-centered counseling to help patients meet their reproductive life goals

Should rapid antigen tests be first-line for COVID-19 testing? Results of a prospective urban cohort study

Abstract Background A highly accurate, rapid, and low-cost COVID-19 test is essential for guiding isolation measures. To date, the most widely used tests are either nucleic acid amplification tests or antigen tests. The objective of this study is to further assess the diagnostic performance of the Binax-CoV2 rapid antigen test in comparison to the current gold standard reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR), with additional analysis of symptomatology and cycle threshold utility. Methods This is a prospective cohort study performed between November and December 2020. Individuals who presented to COVID-19 testing events and received both RT-qPCR and a rapid antigent test were included. Testing occurred at the emergency department of an urban hospital and at a community mobile unit. No fees or appointments were required. Individuals self-reported the presence or absence of symptoms and history of positive COVID-19 test within the previous two weeks. Trained staff collected two subsequent nasopharyngeal swabs of both nares. One set of swabs underwent RT-qPCR and the other underwent Binax-CoV2 assay per manufacturer guidelines. Results A total of 390 patients were included, of which 302 were from the community site. Of these 302, 42 (14%) were RT-qPCR positive. Of the 42 RT-qPCR positive, 30 (71.4%) were also positive by Binax-CoV2. The Binax-CoV2 test had a sensitivity of 71.4% (95% CI: 55%–84%) and a specificity of 99.6% (95% CI: 98%–100%) in this population. Performance of the Binax-CoV2 test performed better in individuals with higher viral load. For symptomatic patients with cycle threshold < 20, sensitivity reached 100%. Conclusions The Binax-CoV2 assay’s specificity and sensitivity in individuals with high viral load makes it a suitable first-line test for detecting COVID-19. However, given the assay’s measured sensitivity, a negative result on the Binax-CoV2 assay may warrant additional testing with more sensitive tests, such as the RT-qPCR. This is particularly the case with high clinical suspicion for an active SARS-CoV-2 infection even after a negative Binax-CoV2 result