Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26109832›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of manual & manipulative therapy2015

Physical therapists' treatment choices for non-specific low back pain in Florida: an electronic survey.

Carlos E Ladeira, M Samuel Cheng, Cheryl J Hill

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Treatment preference changes after exposure to treatment in adults with chronic low back pain.PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation · 2023
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Adherence to key domains in low back pain guidelines: A cross-sectional study of Danish physiotherapists.Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy · 2020
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Are Productivity Goals in Rehabilitation Practice Associated With Unethical Behaviors?Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 2019
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Carlos E LadeiraPhysical Therapy Program, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA.
M Samuel ChengDepartment of Physical Therapy, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA.
Cheryl J HillPhysical Therapy Department, IJAHSP, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA.
Nova Southeastern University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesNo study has described low back pain (LBP) treatment choices among physical therapists (PTs) in the United States (US) in the new millennium. Intervention for LBP in the new millennium is largely based on evidence-based practice (EBP) recommendations. The purpose of this study was twofold: (a) to describe PTs' preferences for treating acute and subacute non-specific LBP in Florida and to compare these preferences to EBP guideline recommendations and (b) to compare outpatient musculoskeletal therapist (MSPT) choices for management of acute and subacute LBP to non-outpatient musculoskeletal therapist (NMSPT) choices.

methodsThe data were collected with an electronic survey. Study participants selected treatment choices for acute and subacute LBP clinical vignettes.

resultsA total of 327 PTs participated in the study, of which 128 worked in outpatient musculoskeletal settings. The most common treatment choices for acute and subacute LBP were home exercise program, exercise in the clinic, back care education, joint mobilization, ice/heat, and interferential current. The EBP adherence rate for acute LBP was 30% for MSPTs and 15% for NMSPTs. Thirty-seven percent (37%) of MSPTs and 30% of NMSPTs adhered to EBP guidelines for subacute LBP. DISCUSSION: The EBP adherence rate for management of acute and subacute LBP was low. Spinal manipulation was underutilized for management of acute LBP, and passive therapeutic procedures were overutilized for subacute LBP. Physical Therapy schools and professional associations should reemphasize the benefits of spinal manipulation to manage non-specific acute LBP and active interventional procedures to manage subacute LBP.

Indexed as

Clinical guidelinesEvidence-based practiceLow back painPhysical therapyPractice description

Identifiers

PMID26109832
PMCPMC4461713
OpenAlexW2108033711

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.