ArticleJournal of athletic training2022
Patient Outcomes After Treatment by Athletic Therapy Students.
Article in Journal of athletic training, 2022. 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.
- A Descriptive Analysis of Patient Outcomes and Experiences at a Student-Run Athletic Training Clinic.Journal of athletic training · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) should be used in athletic training and athletic therapy but are rarely incorporated in internships. Student-run clinics are common in other health professions and provide effective treatment and valuable learning environments. To our knowledge, no one has evaluated rehabilitation outcomes in patients treated by athletic therapy students (ATSs).
objectiveTo measure the improvement in function in injured patients seeking treatment at an ATS clinic.
designCohort study.
settingAn ATS clinic. PATIENTS OR OTHER
participantsA total of 59 patients (32 women, age = 33.9 ± 14.7 years; 27 men, age = 38 ± 14.4 years) from the community with a variety of low back, lower extremity, and upper extremity injuries participated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): At baseline and 6-week follow-up, all patients completed 1 of 3 scales (depending on their injury location) to assess their injured level of function. Scales were the Oswestry Disability Index for low back injuries; Lower Extremity Functional Scale for lower extremity injuries; and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand for upper extremity injuries.
resultsOn average, patients received 4.7 ± 1.8 treatments across 48.8 ± 16.1 days. They experienced an increase in function between baseline and follow-up assessments (18.8% ± 20.3%; P < .001, Cohen d = 1.06). Moreover, the amount of functional improvement was clinically meaningful, as it was greater than the minimal clinically important difference for each scale. The efficacy of treatments did not differ according to the internship experiences of the ATSs.
conclusionsFunction improved in patients after treatment delivered by an ATS. Patient-reported outcome measures were useful for the students in monitoring patient improvement, but more research is needed regarding effective treatments for patients with chronic pain. Our results suggested that ATS clinics provide effective treatments for patients, service to the community, and a learning opportunity for students.
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.