ArticleThe Journal of manual & manipulative therapy2017
The intra-rater reliability of a revised 3-point grading system for accessory joint mobilizations.
Article in The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of an Objective Portable Measurement Device for Spinal Joint Accessory Motion Testing.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesJoint mobilizations are often quantified using a 4-point grading system based on the physiotherapist's detection of resistance. It is suggested that the initial resistance to joint mobilizations is imperceptible to physiotherapists, but that at some point through range becomes perceptible, a point termed R1. Grades of mobilization traditionally hinge around this concept and are performed either before or after R1. Physiotherapists, however, show poor reliability in applying grades of mobilization. The definition of R1 is ambiguous and dependent on the skills of the individual physiotherapist. The aim of this study is to test a revised grading system where R1 is considered at the beginning of range, and the entire range, as perceived by the physiotherapists maximum force application, is divided into three, creating 3 grades of mobilization.
methodThirty-two post-registration physiotherapists and nineteen pre-registration students assessed end of range (point R2) and then applied 3 grades of AP mobilizations, over the talus, in an asymptomatic models ankle. Vertical forces were recorded through a force platform. Intra-class Correlation Coefficients, Standard Error of Measurement, and Minimal Detectable Change were calculated to explore intra-rater reliability on intra-day and inter-day testing. T-tests determined group differences.
resultsIntra-rater reliability was excellent for intra-day testing (ICC 0.96-0.97), and inter-day testing (ICC 0.85-0.93). No statistical difference was found between pre- and post-registration groups. DISCUSSION: Standardizing the definition of grades of mobilization, by moving R1 to the beginning of range and separating grades into thirds, results in excellent intra-rater reliability on intra-day and inter-day tests. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3b.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.