Search

Additional file 1: Supplementary File 1. Search Strategy

Additional file 2: Supplementary File 2. Critical Appraisal Consensus Scores

Additional file 5: Supplementary File 5. Descriptive Synthesis

Additional file 3: Supplementary File 3. Data Extraction

This scoping review will aim to summarise and critically appraise the research evidence related to the use of spinal manipulation and mobilisation therapy techniques in the treatment of infants and children. This project has been planned as a joint project between the IFOMPT (International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapists) and IOPTP (International Organisation of Physical Therapists in Paediatrics). It will explore the findings from empirical research, reviews, guidelines for practice, policies and position statements as part of the review.

A systematic review is conducted to evaluate prostate size and bladder outlet obstruction in men with clinical benign prostatic hyperplasia in primary healthcare.

A systematic review is conducted to evaluate bladder outlet obstruction andprostate size as part of benign prostatic obstruction in men with clinical benign prostatic hyperplasia in primary healthcare. This registration is a renewed registration as part of an update of the systematic search performed on the 26th of November, 2020.

This review will aim to summarise and critically appraise the psychometric properties of the objective measurements used to evaluate the effectiveness of spinal manipulation and mobilisations in children as determined in the scoping review “Spinal manipulation and mobilisations in the treatment of infants, children and adolescents: a scoping review protocol” (Milne et al, 2020). This project has been planned as a joint project between IFOMPT (International Federation of Orthopedic Manipulative Physical Therapists) and IOPTP (International Organisation of Physical Therapists in Paediatrics). It will explore the findings from empirical research and reviews as part of the review.

Objective: To determine the construct validity, criterion validity, and responsiveness of measurement instruments evaluating scapular function. Design: Systematic review of measurement properties. Literature Search: The MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus databases were systematically searched from inception until March 2019. Study Selection Criteria: Studies published in Dutch, English, or German were included when they evaluated at least 1 of the measurement properties of interest. No restrictions were made regarding participants' health status. Data Synthesis: Two reviewers independently evaluated study quality using the COSMIN checklist and extracted and analyzed data. Quality of evidence was graded by measurement property for each distinctive type of measurement. Results: Thirty-one measurement instruments in 14 studies were categorized into instruments to measure scapular posture and movement, and to assess scapular dyskinesis. Quality of evidence was at most moderate for 4 instruments with respect to criterion validity. Of these, criterion validity for instruments measuring scapular protraction/retraction posture and rotation angles up to 120° of thoracohumeral elevation was sufficient. Criterion validity for instruments measuring asymmetrical scapular posture, range of motion, and the lateral scapular slide test was insufficient. Quality of evidence for measurement properties of all other instruments was graded lower. Conclusion: There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend any instrument for the clinical examination of scapular function. Measurement instruments to assess scapular dyskinesis are prone to misinterpretation and should therefore not be used as such.

Introduction: Musculoskeletal pain (MSP) is a burden to patients and to society. In addition to well-known prognostic factors, illness perceptions (IPs) may be associated with pain intensity and physical functioning in MSP but their role is not fully understood. Our research focused on these questions: 1) Do IPs differ between patients with acute, sub-acute and persistent MSP 2) Are IPs, in addition to well-known prognostic factors, associated with pain intensity and with limitations in physical functioning? Methods: Eligible MSP patients from 29 physical therapy practices were invited to participate in a cross-sectional study. IPs were measured with the Brief IPQ-DLV. We compared IPs between patients with acute, sub-acute and persistent MSP (1-way ANOVA with Tukey post-hoc tests). Secondly, associations between IPs with pain intensity and physical functioning were assessed (multiple linear regression). Results: With 658 participants, most IP dimensions showed small differences between acute, sub-acute or persistent pain. For pain intensity, the IP dimensions Consequences, Identity and Comprehensibility explained an additional 13.3% of the variance. For physical functioning, the dimensions Consequences, Treatment Control, Identity and Concern explained an additional 26.5% of the variance. Discussion/conclusion: Most IP dimensions showed small differences between acute, sub-acute or persistent pain. In addition to some well-known prognostic variables, higher scores on some IP dimensions are associated with higher pain intensity and more limitations in physical functioning in patients with MSP. Longitudinal studies are needed to explore the longitudinal associations.