ArticleCurrent orthopaedic practice
Critical survey and panel review of sustained acoustic medicine in the treatment of sports-related musculoskeletal injuries by professional sports athletic trainers.
Article in Current orthopaedic practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Sustained Acoustic Medicine for Treating Musculoskeletal Injuries in Military and Sports Medicine.The open orthopaedics journal · 2022Article
- Sustained acoustic medicine for the treatment of musculoskeletal injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The purpose of our study was two-fold. First, it was to discover American professional sports athletic trainers' (PSAT) use and opinions regarding the treatment with a small, portable ultrasound Sustained Acoustic Medicine (SAM) device on their athletes. Second, it was to discover the effectiveness of SAM treatment in their professional sports players (PSP). Methods: There were two ways of collecting data from the PSATs. The first was by written survey. Questions included qualitative and quantitative feedback on SAM device use, clinical applications, and acceptance among PSP. The second part involved a panel discussion of four PSATs, who shared their personal experiences with SAM. Questions focused on the use of the technology, confidence level, manner of application, and communication with PSPs regarding the application of the SAM and recommended treatment protocols. Results: The survey found that SAM is wearable, easy to use, comfortable, and that it can be used as a "go-to" device outside of the athletic training facility. PSATs reported an 87% satisfaction and increased confidence in the ability of SAM to accelerate the healing process. Thus, SAM was considered a recommended treatment for professional athletes to use as an adjunct therapy. PSATs agreed that SAM is one of the recommended choices as an adjunct therapy in multiple musculoskeletal injuries. Conclusions: The survey and panel discussion concluded that SAM treatment is easy to use with no adverse effects and can be used at multiple stages of the healing process. Level of Evidence: Level IV.
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.