ArticleArchives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation2024
Canadian Physicians' Use of Ultrasound in Spasticity Treatment: A National Cross-Sectional Survey.
Article in Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation, 2024. 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.
- Article
- A novel anatomy and ultrasound curriculum improves physiatry resident confidence with ultrasound-guided musculoskeletal and spasticity procedures.Canadian medical education journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To identify potential barriers and obstacles preventing clinicians from adopting ultrasound for spasticity management. Design: A prospective, cross-sectional national survey. Setting: Web-based platform. Participants: Thirty-six physicians and surgeons from across Canada. Interventions: Survey completion. Main Outcome Measures: The use of ultrasound in clinical spasticity practice, perceived barriers, and risks associated with its implementation. Results: In total, 36 Canadian physicians and surgeons responded. A total of 91% reported using the US in their practice. Nearly all of them used ultrasonography (US) to guide injections and reported using more than 1 guidance technique for their injections. Less than half of the survey respondents reported using the US for muscle architecture assessment or longitudinal evaluation of muscle echo intensity. A total of 47% of survey respondents reported that they believe there are disadvantages associated with US use in spasticity practice. Disadvantages included increased time requirements resulting in discomfort for the injector and patient, the risk of infection after the procedure, and the risk of needle-stick injury. The most important barrier identified was the increased time demands of US compared with other guidance techniques. Other barriers included a lack of feedback on identifying a spastic muscle compared with electrical guidance techniques, a lack of additional remuneration to complete injections under ultrasound guidance, and a lack of adequate training. Conclusions: Future educational efforts should address clinicians' lack of familiarity with US purposes outside of injection guidance. This survey has highlighted the need for a curriculum shift in spasticity education to improve physician's scanning and injection technique, to address concerns about increased time requirements for injecting under ultrasound guidance and to address perceived disadvantages from clinicians.
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.