Blog
About

0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      The effectiveness of trigger point treatment in rotator cuff pathology: A randomized controlled double-blind study

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, patient self-report section: reliability, validity, and responsiveness.

          The purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES), patient self-report section. Patients with shoulder dysfunction (n = 63) completed the ASES, The University of Pennsylvania Shoulder Score, and the Short Form-36 during the initial evaluation, 24 to 72 hours after the initial visit, and after 3 to 4 weeks of physical therapy. The test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient[1-way random-effects], 0.84; 95% CI lower limit, 0.75) and internal consistency (Cronbach alpha, 0.86) values were acceptable. The standard error of the measure was 6.7 ASES points (90% CI, 11.0). Construct and discriminant validity was demonstrated. Responsiveness was demonstrated with a standardized response mean of 1.5 and an effect size of 1.4. The minimal detectable change was 9.7 ASES points (90% CI, 16), and the minimal clinically important difference was 6.4 ASES points. The results indicate that the ASES is a reliable, valid, and responsive outcome tool.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: the lesson of Cronbach.

            To examine the relation between responsiveness coefficients derived directly from a calculation of average change resulting from a treatment intervention (Responsiveness-Treatment or RT) and those derived from retrospective analysis of changed and unchanged groups (Responsiveness Retrospective or RR) based on a global measure of change. Two approaches were used. First, we used simulation methods to examine the analytical relationship between the RT and RR coefficients. We then located eight studies where it was possible to compute both RT and RR coefficients. As anticipated from theoretical arguments, the RR coefficients were larger than the RT coefficients (1.50 versus 0.41, p < .0001). Within study there was no predictable relationship between the two indices. Across studies, the magnitude of the RR coefficient was strongly related to the correlation with the retrospective global scale, and unrelated to the magnitude of the RT coefficient. The simulated curves fit well with the observed data, and substantiated the observation that the relation between RT and RR coefficients is complex and only weakly related to the size of the treatment effect. Retrospective methods of computing responsiveness yield little information about the ability of an instrument to detect treatment effects, and should not be used as a basis for choice of an instrument for applications to clinical trials.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Measuring the wole or the parts?

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation
                BMR
                IOS Press
                18786324
                10538127
                May 05 2019
                May 05 2019
                : 32
                : 3
                : 519-527
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Sciences, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Istanbul, Turkey
                [2 ]Clinics of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Bakirkoy Dr. Sadi Konuk Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey
                [3 ]Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Institute of Graduate Education, Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Istanbul, Turkey
                [4 ]Division of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Sciences, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey
                Article
                10.3233/BMR-181306
                © 2019

                Comments

                Comment on this article