Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30140569›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of sports physical therapy2018

ROLLER MASSAGE: A COMMENTARY ON CLINICAL STANDARDS AND SURVEY OF PHYSICAL THERAPY PROFESSIONALS- PART 1.

Scott W Cheatham, Kyle R Stull

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of sports physical therapy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Tissue Flossing: A Commentary on Clinical Practice Recommendations.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

2 authors.

Scott W CheathamCalifornia State University Dominguez Hills, Carson, CA, USA.
Kyle R StullNational Academy of Sports Medicine, Chandler, AZ, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Roller massage (RM) has become a popular intervention used by rehabilitation professionals and active individuals. The emerging popularity has resulted in the production of various types of rollers and a growing body of research on the therapeutic effects and science behind RM. Despite the growing popularity and research, there is no consensus on clinical standards such as a describing the intervention, indications, precautions, contraindications, and assessment. There have been no specific peer reviewed publications that have discussed such standards. This leaves a gap in the knowledge regarding how clinicians are integrating the RM research into their clinical practice. The purpose of this clinical commentary is to discuss proposed clinical standards for RM. Part I will discuss the proposed clinical standards and Part II will report the results of a 20-question survey sent to physical therapy (PT) professional members of the Orthopedic and Sports Physical Therapy Sections of the American Physical Therapy Association. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5.

Indexed as

foam rollermassagemuscle sorenessmyofascialperceived painrecoveryrelease

Identifiers

PMID30140569
PMCPMC6088127

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.