The Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy最新文献

{"title":"Response to letter to the editor.","authors":"Cody J Mansfield, Charlie Domnisch, Laura Iglar, Laura Boucher, James Onate, Matt Briggs","doi":"10.1080/10669817.2021.1989755","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10669817.2021.1989755","url":null,"abstract":"We would like to thank Dr. Landel for his thoughtful Letter to the Editor. It is exciting to have colleagues as passionate about the Sharp Purser Test as our authorship team. Not only do we hope this review can guide clinicians, but we hope it can guide researchers to develop projects that can give clinicians more confidence in the reliability, validity, and safety of the Sharp Purer Test. The data support our conclusion that inter-rater reliability was poor. The intra-rater reliability of the Sharp Purser Test was at best moderate, and at worst poor. After a robust search strategy of five databases from database inception to 2018, we only identified two studies that investigated the reliability of the Sharp Purser Test. The first study had four examiners perform the Sharp Purser Test on 11 children with Down’s syndrome and yielded poor to moderate intrarater reliability scores (k = 0.67, 0.45, 0.29, 0.67), and inter-rater reliability ranged from 0.09 to 0.67 [1]. It is important to note the difference between intra and inter-rater reliability [2]. Intra-rater reliability is the agreement of the examiner at multiple points of administering the test, whereas inter-rater reliability is the agreement between multiple examiners. When appraising the inter-rater reliability of one examiner compared to another, we see mostly poor inter-rater reliability (k = 0.17, 0.09, 0.67, 0.09, 0.17, 0.45) [1]. In the second reliability study, the inter-rater reliability of the Sharp Purser Test in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis was poor (k = 0.20) [3]. In addition, a recent study was unable to calculate the reliability of the Sharp Purser Test in adults with neck pain due to 100% prevalence of negative findings [4]. If we assume that a test that is unreliable cannot possibly be valid [2] then we must first ask the question, why is the reliability of the Sharp Purser Test suboptimal? It could be the multiple ways that a positive test can occur: 1) reproduction of myelopathic signs with flexion and reduction in symptoms with the sharp purser maneuver or 2) signs of ligamentous laxity with a sliding motion of head posteriorly which may produce a clunk when the dens approximate with the posterior aspect of the atlas [5]. We believe the first condition is likely to have good reliability. However the second condition for a positive Sharp Purser Test is potentially why the reliability suffers so significantly which is more difficult for examiners to detect [6]. This idea was supported by Matthews, where in a five year follow up study to the original article [6] that focused on the Sharp Purser Test, concluded that signs of clunking and abnormal laxity were unreliable [7]. We know that the diagnostic utility of the Sharp Purser Test improves with more severe cases of instability [8], but this likely increases the chance of myelopathic symptoms being produced. Perhaps a paradigm shift is necessary in categorizing what constitutes a positive Sharp Purser Test in order","PeriodicalId":281286,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"339-340"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8725705/pdf/YJMT_29_1989755.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39526965","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Letter to the editor Re: Mansfield et al. Systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy, reliability, and safety of the Sharp-Purser test. JMMT 2020, VOL. 28, NO. 2, 72-81.","authors":"Rob Landel","doi":"10.1080/10669817.2021.1988398","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10669817.2021.1988398","url":null,"abstract":"that the “SPT may be inappropriate to use due to inconsistent validity, poor inter-rater reliability, and potential to cause harm.” Unfortunately, there are several issues with the paper that render the authors’ conclusions problematic. Their conclusions regarding the test’s validity do not match the data that they present. The poor reliability they report is based on two studies with small sample sizes. And finally, they overstate the dangerous nature of the test. With regard to the test’s diagnostic accuracy (Aim 1), the included studies show that the SPT has very high specificity. True, two studies had specificity in the 0.70’s (0.71 and 0.78) but two were above 0.96 (0.96 and 0.98); in other words, if the test is positive, then the patient likely or very likely has upper cervical instability [2]. Furthermore, two of the four studies showed extremely high positive likelihood ratios (22 and 17.25; anything over four is considered likely and over 9 highly likely [2]). Admittedly, the sensitivity was not as good overall, although one of the six studies had it at a perfect 1.00. Based on this data, I would agree with the authors that if I were to do the Sharp–Purser test and it was negative, I would not be able to say with much confidence that the patient does not have upper cervical instability, due to the inconsistent sensitivity. Discarding the SPT because the sensitivity is inconsistent, however, ignores the usefulness of the test in ruling the condition in, Rather than discarding the test entirely it would seem more appropriate to recommend the test be interpreted with caution when a negative result is found. In addition, highlighting the patient populations studied in the reviewed papers would help the reader determine in which patients the test would be most useful (i.e. RA and Down's Syndrome) and for whom it should be used with caution (i.e. those presenting post-trauma). The authors conclude that the SPT is inappropriate in part due to findings of poor reliability. To make this assertion, they report two studies, one with 11 patients, the other with 31 patients. Two of the four examiners in the first study had an intra-rater modified kappa of 0.67. Although not strong, this is considered to be of moderate reliability [3]. Based on these small sample sizes and at least some moderate agreement, perhaps rather than recommending against using the test, an appropriate conclusion would be to caution the clinician about its reliability and call for more studies to be done. The third issue with this paper concerns the authors’ conclusions about the lack of safety of the SPT. The abstract, which unfortunately will be the primary JOURNAL OF MANUAL & MANIPULATIVE THERAPY 2021, VOL. 29, NO. 6, 337–338 https://doi.org/10.1080/10669817.2021.1988398 © 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group takeaway source of information for many readers, states, ‘The SPT may be inappropriate to use due to . . . potential to cause harm.’ This is gros","PeriodicalId":281286,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"337-338"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8725677/pdf/YJMT_29_1988398.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39692980","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Is the fibula positioned anteriorly in weight-bearing in individuals with chronic ankle instability? A case control study.","authors":"Ishanka Weerasekara,&nbsp;Peter G Osmotherly,&nbsp;Suzanne Snodgrass,&nbsp;John Tessier,&nbsp;Darren A Rivett","doi":"10.1080/10669817.2020.1844852","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10669817.2020.1844852","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b>: Clinically, a discrepancy of fibular position in relation to the tibia has been proposed as a factor in the persistence of chronic ankle instability (CAI). Previous studies have produced conflicting findings, perhaps due to varying radiological methods and measurement of participants in non-weight-bearing positions.<b>Objectives</b>: To compare normalized-fibular position in weight-bearing in individuals with CAI with healthy controls.<b>Design</b>: A weight-bearing lateral X-ray was taken of the affected ankle of 33 adults with CAI and 33 matched controls. The distance between the anterior edges of the distal fibula and tibia was recorded, and then normalized as a proportion of maximal tibial width. Normalized-fibular position was compared between groups using independent t-tests. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC_2,1) were calculated to determine reliability of measurements. A receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to determine sensitivity, specificity, and a cutoff score to differentiate individuals with CAI from controls using normalized-fibular position.<b>Results</b>: Normalized fibular position was significantly different (CAI, 29.7 (6.6)%; healthy, 26.7 (4.8)%) between the groups. Measurement of intra-rater (0.99, 95%CI = 0.98 to 1.00) and inter-rater (0.98, 95%CI = 0.96 to 0.99) reliability were both excellent. The threshold normalized-fibular position was 27%, with a score more than 27% indicating a greater chance of being in the CAI group. Sensitivity was 69.7% and specificity was 54.5% for this threshold.<b>Conclusion</b>: A slightly anteriorly positioned fibula in relation to the tibia was observed in people with CAI. Specificity/sensitivity scores for normalized-fibular position indicate that it has little ability to predict CAI alone.</p>","PeriodicalId":281286,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"168-175"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10669817.2020.1844852","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"38596839","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Reliability and accuracy of an expert physical therapist as a reference standard for a manual therapy joint mobilization trial.","authors":"Evan J Petersen,&nbsp;Stephanie M Thurmond,&nbsp;Catherine A Shaw,&nbsp;Kelly N Miller,&nbsp;Tommy W Lee,&nbsp;Jonathan A Koborsi","doi":"10.1080/10669817.2020.1844853","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10669817.2020.1844853","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective</b>: Previous studies on learning joint mobilization techniques have used expert practitioners as the reference standard as there is no current evidence on what ideal forces would be for effective mobilizations. However, none of these trials have documented the reliability or accuracy of the reference standard. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to report both the reliability and accuracy of an expert physical therapist (PT) acting as a reference standard for a manual therapy joint mobilization trial.<b>Methods</b>: A secondary analysis was performed using data from a published randomized, controlled, crossover study. The mobilization technique studied was the central posterior to anterior (PA) joint mobilization of the L3 vertebra. Reliability and accuracy data for the reference standard were collected over four time periods spanning 16 weeks.<b>Results</b>: Intrarater reliability of the expert PT for R1 and R2 joint forces was excellent (R1 Force ICC_3,3 0.95, 95%CI 0.76-0.99 and R2 Force ICC_3,3 0.90, 95%CI 0.49-0.99). Additionally, the expert PT was 92.3% accurate (mean % error±SD, 7.7 ± 5.5) when finding Grade III mean peak mobilization force and 85.1% accurate (mean % error±SD, 14.9 ± 8.3) when finding Grade IV mean peak mobilization force. Finally, correlations between actual applied forces and computed ideal forces were excellent (Pearson r 0.79-0.92, n = 24, <i>P</i> < 0.01 for all correlations).<b>Discussion</b>: The expert PT in this manual therapy joint mobilization trial showed excellent reliability and accuracy as the reference standard. The study supports the use of implementing quantitative feedback devices into the teaching of joint mobilization when a reliable and accurate reference standard has been identified.<b>Level of Evidence</b>: 2b.</p>","PeriodicalId":281286,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"189-195"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10669817.2020.1844853","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"38638195","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Embedding pain neuroscience education in the physical therapy management of patients with chronic plantar fasciitis: a prospective case series.","authors":"Katherine M Mills,&nbsp;Emily B Preston,&nbsp;Breanna M Choffin Schmitt,&nbsp;Haley K Brochu,&nbsp;Eden A Schafer,&nbsp;Payton E Robinette,&nbsp;Emma K Sterling,&nbsp;Rogelio A Coronado","doi":"10.1080/10669817.2020.1821327","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10669817.2020.1821327","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The purpose of this case series was to describe the effects of a biopsychosocial approach that embeds pain neuroscience education (PNE) within physical therapy for improving foot and ankle function, pain, and psychosocial factors in patients with chronic plantar fasciitis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Seven female patients (mean [SD] age = 49.0 [11.4] years) receiving physical therapy for chronic plantar fasciitis were enrolled. Along with formal physical therapy, patients received six 15-minute PNE sessions. Knowledge of pain neuroscience was assessed before and after PNE with the Revised Neurophysiology of Pain Questionnaire. Patients completed questionnaires for foot and ankle function (Activities of Daily Living subscale of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure), pain intensity (Numeric Rating Scale), pain catastrophizing (Pain Catastrophizing Scale), and fear of movement (Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia) at baseline (before treatment) and 6 and 12 weeks. Local and remote pain sensitivity was assessed using a pressure algometer at baseline and 6 weeks.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients attended a mean (range) of 8.7 (7 to 12) physical therapy sessions over a mean (range) of 46.7 (42 to 56) days. After PNE, six (86%) patients demonstrated increased knowledge of pain neuroscience. At 12 weeks, six (86%) patients met or exceeded minimally clinically important difference (MCID) for foot and ankle function and pain. Five (71%) patients met or exceeded MCID for pain catastrophizing and fear of movement. Local pain sensitivity was reduced in six (86%) patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Physical therapy integrating PNE is potentially beneficial for patients with chronic plantar fasciitis. Future studies should examine the efficacy of PNE in randomized trials with larger representative samples.</p>","PeriodicalId":281286,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"158-167"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10669817.2020.1821327","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"38385888","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Comparison of dry needling and trigger point manual therapy in patients with neck and upper back myofascial pain syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Jennalyn Lew,&nbsp;Jennifer Kim,&nbsp;Preeti Nair","doi":"10.1080/10669817.2020.1822618","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10669817.2020.1822618","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients with myofascial pain syndrome of the neck and upper back have active trigger points and may present with pain and decreased function. Dry needling (DN) and trigger point manual therapy (TMPT) techniques are often used to manage MPS.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare DN and TPMT for reducing pain on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Pressure Pain Threshold (PPT) scores and improving function on the Neck Disability Index (NDI) in patients with neck and upper back MPS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, PEDro, and CINAHL were searched for randomized controlled trials within the last 10 years comparing a group receiving DN and the other receiving TPMT. Studies were assessed using PEDro scale and Cochrane risk-of-bias tool to assess methodological quality. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effect model. Standardized mean differences (Cohen's d) and confidence intervals were calculated to compare DN to TPMT for effects on VAS, PPT, and NDI.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six randomized controlled trials with 241 participants total were included in this systematic review. The effect size of difference between DN and TPMT was non-significant for VAS [d = 0.41 (-0.18, 0.99)], for PPT [d = 0.64 (-0.19, 1.47)], and for NDI [d = -0.66 (-1.33, 0.02)].</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both DN and TPMT improve pain and function in the short to medium term. Neither is more superior than the other.</p>","PeriodicalId":281286,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"136-146"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10669817.2020.1822618","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"38410509","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Letter to Editor 'Effect of moving cupping therapy on hip and knee range of movement and knee flexion power: a preliminary investigation'.","authors":"Diksha Bains,&nbsp;Adarsh Kumar Srivastav","doi":"10.1080/10669817.2020.1836573","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10669817.2020.1836573","url":null,"abstract":"Dear Editor, we read the recent publication by Dana Murray and Carl Clarkson entitled ‘Effect of Moving Cupping therapy on hip and knee range of movement and knee flexion power: a preliminary investigation’ published in J Man ManipTher. 2019 Dec; 27(5):287–294, with great interest. We would like to congratulate the authors for recording the improvement of outcome measures in a single session of moving cupping therapy in healthy participants. As stated in the results section, significant improvements were recorded in the Straight Leg Raise (SLR) by 7%, in popliteal angle by 4% and there were improvements in knee flexion peak torque velocity at 60 /sec, 90 /sec and 120 /sec by 3%, 5% and 6% post cupping session, respectively [1]. I gathered much knowledge through this study but have found certain points that need further clarification. Firstly, during the formulation of inclusion criteria, one important factor that was absent consisted of healthy athlete recruitment as it is one of the main criteria for participants’ recruitment. This information should have been included in the Methods section of the manuscript as the authors discussed in detail athletes in the introduction and discussion sections. Secondly, the blinding of the investigators involved for objective assessment and treatment session was not performed, which increased the risk of selection bias. The study design mentioned by authors was a case-series, but as it is known that in case series there must be less than five cases [2] and also the literature does not support questionnaire generation for case series as generated in this study hence, study design must be one group pretestposttest design (quasi experimental) [3]. Furthermore, there is a lack of explanation regarding Moving Cupping intervention as authors did not provide sufficient information regarding the number of cups, the muscles being cupped and the number of suction given while cupping as these parameters need to be addressed while performing Cupping Intervention. Lastly, the authors did not report calculations of data normality which is necessary for statistical analysis. The Shapiro– Wilk test is more appropriate for the normality as the sample size is <50 and on the basis of its calculated value researchers decide whether the data represented as mean ±95% confidence interval are applicable or median and interquartile range. If the data follow the normal distribution, then parametric test is appropriate, i.e. paired t-test or if not then nonparametric tests should be used, i.e. Wilcoxon signed ranked T test [4].","PeriodicalId":281286,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"196-197"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10669817.2020.1836573","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"38508141","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Invited response to editorial \"COVID-19 wash your hands but don't erase them from our profession - considerations on manual therapy past and present\".","authors":"Elaine Lonnemann,&nbsp;Gail D Deyle","doi":"10.1080/10669817.2020.1766844","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10669817.2020.1766844","url":null,"abstract":"We applaud this timely and historical account of the use of manual therapy. While it is arguably valuable for physical therapists to grasp the diverse history and evolution of manual therapy, it is much more important for physical therapists with high level manual therapy skills to not be constrained by the history of the profession as we continue to innovate and demonstrate our value to an evolving health care system. The authors suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic and the recognized benefits of Telehealth are accelerating an existing trend away from hands-on therapy. We question the author’s statement that ‘there is a developing professional trend against manual therapy,’ particularly when this statement is only supported by two negative clinical trials on potentially poor prognosis populations and observed societal pushback from self-perceived social media ‘experts.’ [1–4] Alternatively, we suggest that the increasing medication mindset and shift to a culture of digital transformation could be a threat to the delivery of physical therapy in general. In an age or even a time frame where individuals no longer want to travel to meet with an accountant, get groceries, or attain healthcare, the authors’ concerns of patient access to hands-on therapy are cogent. We think we are in a good position as orthopaedic manual physical therapists. We are fortunate to be able to skillfully and innovatively utilize physical forces in the manual component of therapy. Physical forces are primary stimuli for most physiological processes, including many of those, most directly related to human movement and function. Using our hands to apply physical forces informs the examination and can also be used to initiate a variety of movements not possible through active patient efforts [5–7]. The current pandemic has made us appreciate that we do not need a complex interdependent infrastructure. The art and science of orthopaedic manual physical therapy does not require the grid, the internet, live streaming, computer, and camera to skillfully use our hands and direct forces. This highly skilled application of physical forces whether initiated manually or through exercise can initiate healing [8], maintain or strengthen tissue integrity, and improve movement [5,7,9], which affects not only physical but psychological health [10]. In this age of high tech and low touch, we can still acknowledge the calming value of soothing words and human touch. Call it placebo, but the importance of personal presence and touch should not be underestimated [11]. Telehealth will be at a significant disadvantage in this area. We have good and growing evidence to support the use of orthopaedic manual physical therapy in a spectrum of conditions utilizing treatments that some patients will absolutely prefer and demand. [12–16] We have a toolbox of quality evidence-based treatments available. Every tool does not have to be a hammer, and the pendulum does not have to swing from one side to the ot","PeriodicalId":281286,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"132-133"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10669817.2020.1766844","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"38048554","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Correction.","authors":"","doi":"10.1080/10669817.2020.1764269","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10669817.2020.1764269","url":null,"abstract":"SUR (degrees) Study 15.36 ± 12.34 19.83 ± 6.76 16.78-21.36 .01* 24.52 ± 7.67 20.43-25.62 <.01* 21.45 ± 7.81 18.22-23.67 <.01* Control 16.44 ± 8.94 17.34 ± 12.15 14.29-21.76 .08 21.38 ± 10.35 18.23-24.79 .02* 19.02 ± 7.72 16.90-22.25 .04* Flexion (degrees) Study 89.03 ± 7.37 98.12 ± 8.53 95.09-101.76 <.01* 110.13 ± 11.73 107.65-113.35 .01* 108.12 ± 10.11 105.78-111.03 <.01* Control 87.76 ± 12.37 90.32 ± 9.16 87.29-93.36 .07 99.40 ± 14.23 96.37-101.86 .02* 97.52 ± 10.22 94.76-101.19 .01* Abduction (degrees) Study 76.67 ± 6.02 90.11 ± 11.12 86.98-93.05 .01* 100.24 ± 7.83 97.76-103.54 .03* 93.63 ± 8.23 90.21-96.83 <.01* Control 76.40 ± 10.41 85.13 ± 10.33 81.45-87.55 .08 95.33 ± 12.16 92.78-98.55 .04* 91.34 ± 7.24 88.54-94.06 .02* Ex. Rotation (degrees) Study 44.13 ± 11.54 50.32 ± 7.13 48.56-54.13 .07 61.07 ± 8.03 58.71-64.32 .05* 59.54 ± 11.01 56.38-62.81 .04* Control 43.80 ± 11.38 49.03 ± 9.56 47.82-53.18 .11 56.21 ± 11.12 53.02-60.09 .02* 50.38 ± 6.54 47.92-53.03 .09 SPADI (%) Study 91.00 ± 12.35 80.40 ± 10.23 78.02-84.74 .01* 70.97 ± 8.29 68.54-74.17 <.01* 73.02 ± 8.72 70.31-77.64 <.01* Control 92.35 ± 11.26 83.46 ± 8.29 79.40-86.06 .08 79.86 ± 9.37 76.45-82.65 .03* 81.86 ± 9.07 77.64-83.31 .09","PeriodicalId":281286,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"159"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10669817.2020.1764269","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"38032796","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"\"Let's not forget our Raison d'etre\".","authors":"Dan Vaughn","doi":"10.1080/10669817.2015.1130485","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10669817.2015.1130485","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":281286,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy","volume":"57 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130878918","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}