COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS OF PNF - BASED AND YOGA - BASED ELASTIC RESISTANCE TRAINING ON POSTURAL CONTROL IN PATIENTS WITH DIABETIC PERIPHERAL NEUROPATHY: A TWO - GROUP COMPARATIVE STUDY.

Abstract

Background: Low back pain is a major source of disability, and non-pharmacological
rehabilitation is central to contemporary management. Yoga combines graded movement,
postural control, breathing and attentional regulation, but short-term comparative trajectories
of pain and functional disability remain clinically relevant.
Objective: To compare 21-day changes in Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores and raw
Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) totals between a Yoga group and a Control group.
Methods: This comparative longitudinal analysis included 33 participants: Yoga, n=15 (IDs
1-15), and Control, n=18 (IDs 16-33). VAS and ODI were recorded on Days 1, 7, 14 and 21.
Participant-level spreadsheet data were independently cleaned and analysed; names were
removed. Gaussian generalized estimating equations (GEE) with exchangeable working
correlation and robust standard errors tested group, time and group-by-time effects.
Friedman, Wilcoxon, Mann-Whitney U and Spearman procedures provided non-parametric
sensitivity and exploratory analyses.
Results: No statistically significant baseline difference was detected for age (27.6±9.2 vs
31.5±9.6 years; p=0.243), VAS (median 8 vs 8; p=0.359) or ODI (median 25 vs 23;
p=0.363). Significant group-by-time interactions occurred for VAS (Wald χ²=52.59, df=3,
p<0.001) and ODI (χ²=35.34, df=3, p<0.001). By Day 21, median VAS was 0 (IQR 1) in
Yoga and 2.5 (IQR 1) in Control; median ODI was 1 (IQR 1.5) and 5 (IQR 3.75),
respectively. Baseline-to-Day-21 improvement favoured Yoga for VAS (median 8 vs 5;
rank-biserial r=0.663, Holm-adjusted p=0.001) and ODI (23 vs 16.5; r=0.456, adjusted
p=0.027). Age, yoga-introduction day and sex were not statistically associated with Yoga-
group improvement, although subgroup precision was limited.
Conclusion: The Yoga group showed a faster and greater short-term reduction in pain and
disability than the Control group. Because allocation, co-interventions and protocol details
were unavailable, causal interpretation requires caution and confirmation in larger controlled
studies.