Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35629152›Full record

ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2022

The Category of Conventional Physiotherapy: The Case of Parkinson's Disease Guidelines.

Martina Hoskovcová, Evžen Růžička, Ota Gál, On Behalf Of The iCARE-Pd Consortium

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Martina HoskovcováDepartment of Neurology, Centre of Clinical Neuroscience, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, General University Hospital in Prague, 128 21 Prague, Czech Republic.
Evžen RůžičkaDepartment of Neurology, Centre of Clinical Neuroscience, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, General University Hospital in Prague, 128 21 Prague, Czech Republic.
Ota GálDepartment of Neurology, Centre of Clinical Neuroscience, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, General University Hospital in Prague, 128 21 Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-8614-2776
On Behalf Of The iCARE-Pd ConsortiumDepartment of Neurology, Centre of Clinical Neuroscience, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, General University Hospital in Prague, 128 21 Prague, Czech Republic.

Funding

EU Joint Programme - Neurodegenerative Disease Research (JPND) 8F19003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This opinion paper reviews the use of the category of "conventional physiotherapy" (CPT) in Parkinson's disease (PD)-relevant reviews and meta-analyses and points out serious inconsistencies within and among them. These are first discussed in general, leading to the conclusion that, in most cases, the category of CPT encompasses a range of incompatible interventions. This undermines previous conclusions about their superiority or inferiority relative to various other treatment modalities. Next, the update to the European Physiotherapy Guidelines is discussed in detail, since it treats CPT as a global and time-independent category per se, ascribing effects in various domains to it. This introduces several important biases into the findings presented in this publication. These are subsequently discussed, and it is concluded that the categorisation of various physiotherapy techniques under the umbrella term of CPT is empty, or even dangerous, and should be abandoned. Other categories are suggested as a replacement, including "Other Physiotherapy Techniques" and "Multimodal Training".

Indexed as

conventional physiotherapyguidelinemeta-analysesParkinson’s diseasereviews

Identifiers

PMID35629152
PMCPMC9143172

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.