ReviewBrazilian journal of physical therapy
Vascular flow limitations affecting the cervico-cranial region: Understanding ischaemia.
Review in Brazilian journal of physical therapy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Entry to practice physiotherapy students' use of the international IFOMPT cervical framework to inform clinical reasoning: a qualitative case study design.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Understanding degenerative cervical myelopathy in musculoskeletal practice.The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2025Review
- Recognition of a patient with neck autonomic dysfunction: findings from a rare case report of harlequin syndrome in direct access physiotherapy.The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2024Article
- Physiotherapy Screening for Referral of a Patient with Patent Foramen Ovale Presenting with Neck Pain as Primary Complaint: A Case Report.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 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 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBlood flow and brain ischaemia have been of interest to physical therapists for decades. Despite much debate, and multiple publications around risk assessment of the cervical spine, more work is required to achieve consensus on this vital, complex topic. In 2020, the International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapists (IFOMPT) Cervical Framework adopted the dubious terminology 'vascular pathologies of the neck', which is misleading, on the premise that 1) not all flow limitations leading to ischaemia, are associated with observable blood vessel pathology and 2) not all blood flow limitations leading to ischaemia, are in the anatomical region of the 'neck'.
objectiveThis paper draws upon the full body of haemodynamic knowledge and science, to describe the variety of arterial flow limitations affecting the cervico-cranial region. DISCUSSION: It is the authors' contention that to apply clinical reasoning and appropriate risk assessment of the cervical spine, there is a requirement for clinicians to have a clear understanding of anatomy/anatomical relations, the haemodynamic science of vascular flow limitation, and related pathologies. This paper describes the wide range of presentations and haemodynamic mechanisms that clinicians may encounter in practice. In cases with a high index suspicion of vascular involvement or an adverse response to assessment/intervention, appropriate referral should be made for further investigations, using consistent terminology. The term 'vascular flow limitation' is proposed when considering the range of mechanisms at play. This fits the terminology used (in vascular literature) at other anatomical sites and is understood by medical colleagues.
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.