Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22716771›Full record

SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2012

Advanced practice physiotherapy in patients with musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review.

François Desmeules, Jean-Sébastien Roy, Joy C MacDermid, François Champagne, Odette Hinse, Linda June Woodhouse

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05200533 (Task-sharing and Shifting Model Between Family Physicians and Physiotherapists for Acute Low Back Pain Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 91 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
91citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05200533 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Task-sharing and Shifting Model Between Family Physicians and Physiotherapists for Acute Low Back Pain Patients: a Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Hospital, GrenobleRan2022 to 2024Enrolled195ConditionsLow Back PainArmsTask-sharing and shifting model between family physicians and physiotherapists, Usual care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

91 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Advanced practice physiotherapy for adults with spinal pain: a systematic review with meta-analysis.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2021
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

31 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

François DesmeulesSchool of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. f.desmeules@umontreal.ca
Jean-Sébastien Roy
Joy C MacDermid
François Champagne
Odette Hinse
Linda June Woodhouse

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe convergence of rising health care costs and physician shortages have made health care transformation a priority in many countries resulting in the emergence of new models of care that often involve the extension of the scope of practice for allied health professionals. Physiotherapists in advanced practice/extended scope roles have emerged as key providers in such new models, especially in settings providing services to patients with musculoskeletal disorders. However, evidence of the systematic evaluation of advance physiotherapy practice (APP) models of care is scarce. A systematic review was done to update the evaluation of physiotherapists in APP roles in the management of patients with musculoskeletal disorders.

methodsStructured literature search was conducted in 3 databases (Medline, Cinahl and Embase) for articles published between 1980 and 2011. Included studies needed to present original quantitative data that addressed the impact or the effect of APP care. A total of 16 studies met all inclusion criteria and were included. Pairs of raters used four structured quality appraisal methodological tools depending on design of studies to analyse included studies.

resultsIncluded studies varied in designs and objectives and could be categorized in four areas: diagnostic agreement or accuracy compared to medical providers, treatment effectiveness, economic efficiency or patient satisfaction. There was a wide range in the quality of studies (from 25% to 93%), with only 43% of papers reaching or exceeding a score of 70% on the methodological quality rating scales. Their findings are however consistent and suggest that APP care may be as (or more) beneficial than usual care by physicians for patients with musculoskeletal disorders, in terms of diagnostic accuracy, treatment effectiveness, use of healthcare resources, economic costs and patient satisfaction.

conclusionsThe emerging evidence suggests that physiotherapists in APP roles provide equal or better usual care in comparison to physicians in terms of diagnostic accuracy, treatment effectiveness, use of healthcare resources, economic costs and patient satisfaction. There is a need for more methodologically sound studies to evaluate the effectiveness APP care.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareEvidence-Based PracticePhysical TherapistsPhysical Therapy ModalitiesProfessional RoleClinical CompetenceCost-Benefit AnalysisHealth Care CostsHumansMusculoskeletal DiseasesPatient Care TeamPatient SatisfactionTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID22716771
PMCPMC3599404

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.