Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36939971›Full record

ReviewThe ultrasound journal2023

A proposed framework for point of care musculoskeletal ultrasound and ultrasound image-guided interventions by physiotherapists: scope of practice, education and governance.

Mike Smith, Sue Innes, Stuart Wildman, David Baker

Open access · goldFull text readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The ultrasound journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Mike SmithSchool of Healthcare Sciences, College of Biomedical and Life Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. smithmj2@cardiff.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4199-3315
Sue InnesSchool of Sport, Rehabilitation and Exercise Sciences, University of Essex, Colchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3317-7609
Stuart WildmanHomerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
David BakerBrunel University, London, UK.
Brunel University of London · GBCardiff University · GBHomerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Essex · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of point of care ultrasound (PoCUS) in the management of musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders is a diverse area of PoCUS practice. Its use by clinicians, such as physiotherapists, can occur across a wide range of roles and care pathway configurations; however, professional, educational and regulatory uncertainties can leave clinicians, managers and patients at risk. MAIN BODY: A PoCUS framework approach (previously applied to support PoCUS consolidation and expansion) is used to frame these proposals. Central to this is the defining of (clinical and sonographic) scope of practice (ScoP). A number of indicative ScoPs are described to both (i) illustrate application of the principles and (ii) provide templates for ScoP derivations for individual services or clinicians. Image-guided MSK interventions are increasingly an aspect of MSK physiotherapy PoCUS. Given the utility of physiotherapists drawing upon their imaging to fully inform the selection (and performance) of such techniques, we present a rationale for competency in undertaking sonographic differentials as a pre-cursor to performing ultrasound image-guided MSK interventions. Alignment of ScoP with the relevant education and formal competency assessments are a cornerstone of the PoCUS framework approach; as such, key aspects of MSK PoCUS education and competency assessment are outlined. Strategies for addressing such requirements in healthcare settings where formal provision is not accessible, are also presented. Governance considerations are aligned with the regulatory environment, including those pertaining to professional guidance and insurance considerations. In addition, generic quality assurance elements are emphasised, as core aspects of high-quality service provision. Whilst the paper clarifies the situation for MSK physiotherapists using PoCUS in the UK, prompts are provided to support other professional groups working in MSK services in the United Kingdom (UK) and MSK physiotherapists/physical therapists in other countries-to facilitate their application of the principles.

conclusionAcknowledging the breadth of MSK physiotherapy PoCUS practice, this paper draws upon a framework approach to provide integrated ScoP, education/competency and governance solutions, along with mechanisms for other professions working with MSK PoCUS-and physiotherapists/physical therapists outside of the UK-to consolidate and expand their practice.

Indexed as

CapabilityEducation and competencyFrameworkGovernanceMusculoskeletal/MSKOrthopaedics/orthopedicsPhysiotherapy/physical therapyPoint of care ultrasound/PoCUSScope of practice

Identifiers

PMID36939971
PMCPMC10027973
OpenAlexW4327893753

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
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.