February 2010 Errata

Lynn A. Wallace, PhD, PT, ATC, delivered the Ron Peyton Award Lecture at the Combined Sections Meeting in San Antonio in February. Wallace is the sixth recipient of the Sports Physical Therapy Section's Peyton Award, which was named for its first recipient and the first chairperson of the Sports Physical Therapy Section, Ronald G. Peyton, MS. PT, ATC. Wallace is a graduate of Ohio State University, Case Western Reserve University, and Columbia Pacific University. He served as the second chairperson of the Sports Physical Therapy Section, on several task forces and committees to establish specialization in sports physical therapy, and on the original Sports Physical Therapy Specialization Council. Wallace is currently the owner/president of Ohio Physical Therapy and Sports Medicine in Cleveland, OH. He continues to serve on the editorial board of The Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy.

These abstracts are presented here as prepared by the authors. The accuracy and content of each abstract remain the responsibility of the authors. In the identification number above each abstract, SPL designates a Sports Physical Therapy Section platform presentation. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2011;41(1):A39–A51. doi:10.2519/jospt.2011.41.1.A39

Presented here is the schedule of platform and poster research presentations made by the Orthopaedic Section and Sports Physical Therapy Section of the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) during APTA's Combined Sections Meeting, February 8-12, 1995, in Reno, Nevada. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1995;21(1):44–47. doi:10.2519/jospt.1995.21.1.44

Roller massage (RM) has become a popular intervention prescribed by physical therapy (PT) professionals. While this popularity has stimulated an increase in research and product development, the trends in the use of RM among PT professionals remain undocumented. It is unknown how professionals are using RM and integrating the research into their clinical practice. To survey and document responses in the knowledge, clinical application methods, and use of RM devices among PT professionals in the United States. Cross-sectional survey study. A 20-question online survey related to personal and professional demographics, beliefs about RM, preferred RM devices, RM exercise prescription, and client education was emailed to PT members of the Orthopedic and Sports Physical Therapy Sections. A total of 685 sports and orthopedic PT professionals completed the survey. Most professionals surveyed believe that RM decreases pain (80%), increases mobility (68%), and increases range of motion (ROM) (40%). Fifty-one percent believed moderate density rollers have the greatest effect. Eighty percent of professionals use a foam roller in their practice and 51% recommend to clients. A high proportion of professionals prescribe RM for injury treatment (82%) and for pre and post-exercise interventions (55%). Most professionals recommend rolling daily for 30 seconds to two minutes (55%), per muscle group (64%), at a self-paced cadence (47%). A high proportion of professionals use patient reported outcomes (80%), followed by joint ROM (59%), and movement-based testing (42%) to measure effects of RM. Eighty-seven percent of professionals use live instruction to educate clients and 91% believe there is a gap in the research. The results of this survey should be considered descriptive and a starting point for future research to establish a consensus on optimal RM programming, devices, and application parameters for different musculoskeletal conditions. The observed responses provide some insight into how PT professionals are using RM in their practice and highlight the existing gap between the research and professional practice. Further research is needed to explore the responses documented in this study. 3.

Weak hip muscles lead to poor hip motion, and poor hip motion can cause knee, hip, and back pain. By exercising to strengthen the hip muscles that control how your hip moves, you can reduce your pain in these parts of your body. However, it is often difficult to strengthen these muscles without also strengthening a muscle called the tensor fascia lata, which is located toward the front of the hip. Too much activation of that muscle may create unwanted hip motion that may worsen knee, hip, or back pain. A study published in the February 2013 issue of JOSPT provides information intended to help physical therapists and their patients select exercises that target the buttock muscles without causing other unwanted muscle actions. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2013;43(2):65. doi:10.2519/jospt.2013.0501

Neck pain is very common. In the United States, between 30% and 50% of people suffer from an aching neck each year. Although neck pain can be caused by injury, most of this pain results from more gradual stresses, such as particular sitting, standing, or work postures, lifting patterns, or sleeping positions. Typical neck pain can also cause headaches, pain between your shoulders, or a feeling of knots in your neck and upper back muscles. Although manual therapy, sometimes called "manipulation," is a common treatment for many types of spine pain, some people are uncomfortable having their necks manipulated. Recently, though, researchers have tested the benefits of a thrust manipulation of the upper back to treat neck pain. A study published in the September 2011 issue of JOSPT provides new insight and an evidence-based summary of the benefits of manipulating the upper back to ease and eliminate neck pain.

Whether you are the pitcher, coach, or concerned parent, the health of the athlete's throwing arm is very important. A better understanding of the forces that occur during different types of baseball throws could lead to improved guidelines, helping to boost performance while preventing injuries. A study published in the May 2011 issue of JOSPT provides new insight into the forces placed on the shoulder and elbow during flat-ground and long-toss throws.

These abstracts are presented here as prepared by the authors. The accuracy and content of each abstract remain the responsibility of the authors. In the identification number above each abstract, SPL designates a Sports Physical Therapy Section platform presentation. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(1):A30-A66. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.48.1.A30.

These abstracts are presented here as prepared by the authors. The accuracy and content of each abstract remain the responsibility of the authors. In the identification number above each abstract, SPO designates a Sports Physical Therapy Section poster presentation. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2014;44(1):A159–A191. doi:10.2519/jospt.2014.44.1.A159

This was the third research meeting focused on scapular function and dysfunction, following similar meetings in 2003 and 2006. The purpose of this meeting, hosted by the Shoulder Center of Kentucky, was to continue to examine the biomechanical and clinical factors thought to be associated with the role of the scapula in shoulder function and dysfunction. Since the last Summit, much more information has been created in this area, and it was thought that enough progress had been made that an organized overview of current knowledge could provide some consensus statements to guide further research and provide assessment and treatment guidelines. A call for abstracts was extended to researchers with proven interest and published research on the scapula. The meeting was organized around 3 primary categories of information: scapular kinematics and dysfunction, clinical evaluation of the scapula, and interventions. The last session of the meeting involved development of consensus statements for each category. This document represents the current state of knowledge concerning the aspects of scapular function and dysfunction discussed at the Summit. It is expected that, as more knowledge is developed, the gaps will be filled in and a clearer understanding of the roles of the scapula in shoulder function will emerge. This issue includes the consensus statements and abstracts from the Summit.

The Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy is pleased to publish selected abstracts of the Congresso Internacional de Reabilitação Neuromusculoesquelética e Esportiva, which took place in Vitória, Brazil, May 18 to 21, 2011. This collection of abstracts provides a brief summary of the research presented at that meeting. These abstracts do not permit a full evaluation of the scientific rigor with which the work was conducted, but they provide an idea of the type of clinical questions being researched by individuals participating in that meeting. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2011;41(10):A1–A4. doi:10.2519/jospt.2011.0301

This article was previously published in Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2014; 95:415–417, and reproduced here with journal stylistic modifications and appropriate updates to online information citations under the creative commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.en_US). With the remarkable growth of disability-related and rehabilitation-related research in the last decade, it is imperative that we support the highest quality research possible. With cuts in research funding, rehabilitation research is now under a microscope like never before, and it is critical that we put our best foot forward. To ensure the quality of the disability and rehabilitation research that is published, the 28 rehabilitation journals simultaneously publishing this editorial (see acknowledgments) have agreed to take a more aggressive stance on the use of reporting guidelines*. Research reports must contain sufficient information to allow readers to understand how a study was designed and conducted, including variable definitions, instruments and other measures, and analytical techniques (Moher et al., 2008). For review articles, systematic or narrative, readers should be informed of the rationale and details behind the literature search strategy. Too often, articles fail to include their standard for inclusion and their criteria for evaluating quality of the studies (Simera et al., 2008). As stated by Doug Altman, co-originator of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement and head of the Centre for Statistics in Medicine at Oxford University, ‘Good reporting is not an optional extra: it is an essential component of good research…we all share this obligation and responsibility.’ (Altman, 2008). What are reporting guidelines? Reporting guidelines are documents that assist authors in reporting research methods and findings. They are typically presented as checklists or flow diagrams that lay out the core reporting criteria required to give a clear account of a study’s methods and results. The intent is not just that the authors complete a specific reporting checklist but that they ensure that their articles contain key elements. Reporting guidelines should not be seen as an administrative burden; rather, they are a template on the basis of which authors can construct their articles more completely. Reporting guidelines have been developed for almost every study design. More information on the design, use, and array of reporting guidelines can be found on the website for the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) network (EQUATOR, 2013), an important organization that promotes improvements in the accuracy and comprehensiveness of reporting. Examples include the following: CONSORT for randomized controlled trials (http://www.consort-statement.org); Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) for observational studies (http://strobe-statement.org/); Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (http://www.prisma-statement.org/); Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) for studies on diagnostic accuracy (http://www.stard-statement.org/); and Case Reports (CARE) for case reports (http://www.care-statement.org/). There is accumulating evidence that the use of reporting guidelines improves the quality of research. Turner et al. (2012) established that the use of the CONSORT statement improved the completeness of reporting in randomized controlled trials. Diagnostic accuracy studies appeared to show improvements in reporting standards when the STARD guidelines were applied (Smidt et al., 2006). Early evidence also suggests that inclusion of reporting standards during peer review raises manuscript quality (Cobo et al., 2011). The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors now encourages all journals to monitor reporting standards and collect associated reporting guideline checklists in the process (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 2014). Further, the National Library of Medicine also now actively promotes the use of reporting guidelines (U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2013). How will reporting guidelines be integrated into manuscript flow? By 1 January 2015, all of the journals publishing this editorial will have worked through implementation, and the mandatory use of guidelines and checklists will be firmly in place. Because each journal has its unique system for managing submissions, there may be several ways by which these reporting requirements will be integrated into the manuscript flow. Some journals will make adherence to reporting criteria and associated checklists mandatory for all submissions. Other journals may require them only when the article is closer to acceptance for publication. In any case, the onus will be on the author not only to ensure the inclusion of the appropriate reporting criteria but also to document evidence of inclusion through the use of the reporting guideline checklists. Authors should consult the Instructions for Authors of participating journals for more information. We hope that simultaneous implementation of this new reporting requirement will send a strong message to all disability and rehabilitation researchers of the need to adhere to the highest standards when performing and disseminating research. Although we expect that there will be growing pains with this process, we hope that within a short period, researchers will begin to use these guidelines during the design phases of their research, thereby improving their methods. The potential benefits to the authors are obvious: articles are improved through superior reporting of a study’s design and methods and the usefulness of the article to the readers is enhanced. Reporting guidelines also allow for greater transparency in reporting how studies were conducted and can help, hopefully, during the peer review process to expose misleading or selective reporting. Reporting guidelines are an important tool to assist authors in the structural development of a manuscript, eventually allowing an article to realize its full potential. *Physical Therapy, The Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, The Journal of Physiotherapy, and The European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine have already successfully required reporting guidelines, one for as many as 10 years. Acknowledgements As this issue went to press, the following Editors agreed to participate in the initiative to mandate reporting guidelines and publish this Position Statement in their respective journals. As a collective group, we encourage others to adopt these guidelines and welcome them to share this editorial with their readerships. Sharon A. Gutman, PhD, OTR (Editor-in-Chief), American Journal of Occupational Therapy; Walter R. Frontera, MD, PhD (Editor-in-Chief), American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; Leighton Chan, MD, MPH, and Allen W. Heinemann, PhD (Co-Editors-in-Chief), Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation; Helene J. Polatajko, PhD, OT(C) (Editor-in-Chief), Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy; Derick T. Wade, MD (Editor-in-Chief), Clinical Rehabilitation; Suzanne McDermott, PhD, and Margaret A. Turk, MD (Co-Editors-in-Chief), Disability and Health Journal; Stefano Negrini, MD (Editor-in-Chief), European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine; Steven Vogel, DO(Hon) (Editor-in-Chief), The International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine; Črt Marinček, MD, PhD (Editor-in-Chief), International Journal of Rehabilitation Research; M. Solomonow, PhD, MD(hon) (Editor-in-Chief), Journal of Electromyography & Kinesiology; Paolo Bonato, PhD (Editor-in-Chief), Journal of Neuro Engineering and Rehabilitation; Edelle [Edee] Field-Fote, PT, PhD (Editor-in-Chief), Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy; Guy G. Simoneau, PhD, PT (Editor-in-Chief), Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT); Mark Elkins, PhD, MHSc, BA, BPhty (Editor-in-Chief), Journal of Physiotherapy; Stacieann C. Yuhasz, PhD (Editor-in-Chief), Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development; Bengt H. Sjölund, MD, DMSc (Editor-in-Chief), Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine; Carl G. Mattacola, PhD, ATC (Editor-in-Chief), Journal of Sport Rehabilitation; Ann Moore, PhD and Gwendolen Jull, PhD (Co-Editors-in-Chief), Manual Therapy; Randolph J. Nudo, PhD (Editor-in-Chief), Neurorehabilitation & Neural Repair; Kathleen Matuska, PhD, OTR/L (Editor-in-Chief), Occupational Therapy Journal of Research: Occupation, Participation, and Health; Ann F Van Sant, PT, PhD (Editor-in-Chief), Pediatric Physical Therapy; Greg Carter, MD (Consulting Editor), Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America; Rebecca L. Craik, PT, PhD (Editor-in-Chief), Physical Therapy; Dina Brooks, PhD (Scientific Editor), Physiotherapy Canada; Stuart M. Weinstein, MD (Editor-in-Chief), PM&R; Elaine L. Miller, PhD, RN (Editor-in-Chief), Rehabilitation Nursing; Elliot J. Roth, MD (Editor-in-Chief), Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation; Dilşad Sindel, MD (Editor-in-Chief), Turkish Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.

These abstracts are presented here as prepared by the authors. The accuracy and content of each abstract remain the responsibility of the authors. In the identification number above each abstract, SPO designates a Sports Physical Therapy Section poster presentation. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016;46(1):A158–A208. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.46.1.A158

Previous article Full AccessLetters to the Editor-in-ChiefSeptember 2000 Letters to the Editor-in-ChiefAuthorsJournal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical TherapyPublished OnlineSeptember 1, 2000Volume30Issue9Pages557-559https://www.jospt.org/doi/10.2519/jospt.2000.30.9.557SectionsPDFPDF PLUS ToolsAdd to FavoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail AboutAbstractLetters to the Editor-in-Chief of JOSPT as follows: ‘Models Coexisting’ and Editor-in-Chief's Reply‘Myth of Evidence-Based Practice Too Negative’ and Editor-in-Chief ReplyJ Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2000;30(9):557–559. doi:10.2519/jospt.2000.30.9.557Models CoexistingMark Werneke, , MSPT, Dip. MDT and Southern Ocean Center for Health at Forked River 730 Lacey Road Forked River, NJ 08731Editor-in-Chief RepliesRichard P. Di Fabio, , PhD, PT Editor-in-ChiefMyth of Evidence-Based Practice Too NegativeDave Johnson, , PT, PhD, FAAOMPT and Assistant Professor of Physical Therapy, and of Biostatistics & Epidemiology, The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, PO Box 26901, 801 NE 13th Street, Oklahoma City, OK 73190Editor-in-Chief RepliesRichard P. Di Fabio, , PhD, PT Editor-in-ChiefFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byMay 2001 Letters to the Editor-in-Chief1 May 2001 | Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, Vol. 31, No. 5 Volume 30, Issue 9September 2000Pages: 510-559 PDF download

THE FOOT AND ANKLE: A COMPENDIUM OF ABSTRACTS Edited by Bob Tank, PT, Publication of the Sports Physical Therapy Section of the American Physical Therapy Association. Available through the Sports Section at P.O. Box 8068, Columbus, GA 31908. 182 pages, paperback, $20