Comparison of Matrix Rhythm Therapy versus Conventional Physiotherapy on Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
Background: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) arises when stomach acid reflux results in bothersome symptoms. Previous research has demonstrated that each of the three techniques – diaphragmatic breathing (DB), diaphragmatic stretch, and progressive muscle relaxation – reduces the symptoms of GERD. This study aims to compare the effect of matrix rhythm therapy (MaRhyThe) to the effects of conventional physiotherapy on GERD. Materials and Methods: Twenty-two participants aged between 30 and 50 years were divided at random into Groups A and B. Group A received MaRhyThe and Group B received conventional physiotherapy, i.e. DB, diaphragmatic stretch, and relaxation techniques. The participants in both groups were treated for 5 weeks, with one session per week, each lasting 45 min. The outcome measures included three scales – GERD Questionnaire Scale, GERD-health-related quality of life (QOL) Scale, and GERD-QOL Scale. Participants filled out these questionnaires before and post their treatment. Results: The Shapiro–Wilk test suggested that the collected data are within normal distribution. A paired sample t -test revealed that both groups had improved significantly. The independent t -test showed more improvement in Group A than in Group B. Conclusion: The study concludes that both MaRhyThe and conventional physiotherapy have proven beneficial in relieving the participants’ symptoms. However, MaRhyThe proved more beneficial than conventional physiotherapy.
Authors
- Supreet P Marathe (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7793-8705)
- Motimath Basavaraj
- MARIAM SAYED
- Luís Vaz (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0484-7869)
Institutions
- KLE Academy of Higher Education and Research (IN)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Indian Journal of Physical Therapy and Research
- Published
- 2025-01-01
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.4103/ijptr.ijptr_50_25
- Primary Topic
- Gastroesophageal reflux and treatments
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00