Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27661792›Full record

ArticleJournal of athletic training2016

Spinal-Exercise Prescription in Sport: Classifying Physical Training and Rehabilitation by Intention and Outcome.

Simon Spencer, Alex Wolf, Alison Rushton

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of athletic training, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Simon SpencerThe English Institute of Sport, The Manchester Institute of Health and Performance, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Alex WolfThe English Institute of Sport, The Manchester Institute of Health and Performance, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Alison RushtonUniversity of Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Charing Cross Hospital · GBEnglish Institute of Sport · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextIdentification of strategies to prevent spinal injury, optimize rehabilitation, and enhance performance is a priority for practitioners. Different exercises produce different effects on neuromuscular performance. Clarity of the purpose of a prescribed exercise is central to a successful outcome. Spinal exercises need to be classified according to the objective of the exercise and planned physical outcome.

objectiveTo define the modifiable spinal abilities that underpin optimal function during skilled athletic performance, clarify the effect of spinal pain and pathologic conditions, and classify spinal exercises according to the objective of the exercise and intended physical outcomes to inform training and rehabilitation.

designQualitative study. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We conducted a qualitative consensus method of 4 iterative phases. An exploratory panel carried out an extended review of the English-language literature using CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PubMed to identify key themes and subthemes to inform the definitions of exercise categories, physical abilities, and physical outcomes. An expert project group reviewed panel findings. A draft classification was discussed with physiotherapists (n = 49) and international experts. Lead physiotherapy and strength and conditioning teams (n = 17) reviewed a revised classification. Consensus was defined as unanimous agreement.

resultsAfter the literature review and subsequent analysis, we defined spinal abilities in 4 categories: mobility, motor control, work capacity, and strength. Exercises were subclassified by functionality as nonfunctional or functional and by spinal displacement as either static (neutral spinal posture with no segmental displacement) or dynamic (dynamic segmental movement). The proposed terminology and classification support commonality of language for practitioners.

conclusionsThe spinal-exercise classification will support clinical reasoning through a framework of spinal-exercise objectives that clearly define the nature of the exercise prescription required to deliver intended physical outcomes.

Indexed as

Exercise TherapyGoalsHumansIntentionPhysical Education and TrainingPostureSpinal InjuriesTerminology as Topicbackclassificationspine

Identifiers

PMID27661792
PMCPMC5094840
OpenAlexW2521715057

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.