ArticleCureus2024
Research Priorities in the Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy Among Diploma Therapists: An International Delphi Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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.
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Mechanical diagnosis and therapy (MDT) is the most researched approach in musculoskeletal physical therapy and involves classifying patients into sub-groups based on their response to loading strategies. MDT diploma therapists (Dip-MDTs) fully recognize the value of MDT in musculoskeletal physical therapy. MDT is updating its system based on the latest research, but the system has not yet been fully established. Therefore, more research is required to increase the comprehensibility of the system. Thus, we aimed to identify future research priorities of MDT. Methods We conducted a modified Delphi study with three rounds. The Research Advisory Committee (RAC) members (n=7) of the McKenzie Institute International were invited to participate in the initial idea generation round. In the subsequent two consensus rounds, Dip-MDTs (n=299) were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the results of the idea generation round using a five-point Likert scale. The criteria for consensus were mean score ≥4.0, coefficient of variation ≤30%, percent agreement ≥75%, and quartile deviation ≤1. A post-hoc analysis of the consensus was conducted when the number of participants from a certain country exceeded one-third of the total number of participants. Results The participation rates for each round were 57.1%, 52.2%, and 49.8%. The USA accounted for 43.6% and 44.3% of all participants at the two consensus rounds, respectively. Finally, nine items reached consensus in the second consensus round. After the post-hoc analysis, eight items reached consensus: (1) cost-effectiveness, (2) cervical and thoracic spine, (3) extremity classifications, (4) filtered randomized controlled trials (RCTs), (5) spinal source classification, (6) centralization and directional preferences, (7) predictive factors for recurrence, and (8) patient education. Conclusion In this study, we identified the research priorities of MDT that would enhance the completion of the MDT system.
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.