ArticleCureus2024
Japanese Clinical Physical Therapists With the Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy License Are More Competent and Confident in Pain Management Than Those Without It: A Cross-Sectional 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 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
- Utilization patterns and perceived effectiveness of manual therapy for low back pain among Saudi physical therapists: a national cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The McKenzie Method of Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy (MDT) has long been misunderstood as a biomedical approach. In fact, it is a biopsychosocial approach with an up-to-date evidence-based educational curriculum. Recently, it has become possible to partially measure competence in clinical decision-making based on contemporary pain understanding and confidence in pain management using the Pain Understanding and Confidence Questionnaire (PUnCQ). The primary aim of this study was to compare the following outcomes between physical therapists with and without credential license in MDT (Cred.MDT) and the PUnCQ as well as attitudes toward the biopsychosocial perspective, adherence to evidence-based management for low back pain (LBP), and knowledge of modern pain science. The secondary aim was to explore relevant factors in the PUnCQ. Methodology Clinical physical therapists who were managing patients with pain were recruited from two associations (the Japanese Society of Allied Health and Rehabilitation and the Japan Branch of the International McKenzie Institute, who had all acquired at least the Cred.MDT). The following outcomes were measured: (1) the PUnCQ-1 for partial competence in evidence-based clinical decision-making for pain management; (2) part 2 scores of the PUnCQ for confidence in pain management; (3) the Pain Attitudes and Beliefs Scale for Physical Therapists (PABS-PT) biopsychosocial/biomedical ratio for treatment perspectives; (4) the Knowledge and Attitudes of Pain (KNAP) for knowledge of modern pain science; and (5) a questionnaire for adherence to LBP practice guidelines. Two group comparisons were conducted for the primary aim and a multiple regression analysis for the independent variable of the PUnCQ-1 was conducted for the secondary aim. Results Data from 122 physical therapists (63 and 59 participants with and without the Cred.MDT, respectively) were analyzed. Statistically significantly higher scores were detected for physical therapists with Cred.MDT compared to those without (all p<0.05) for all of the above outcomes. The multiple regression analysis demonstrated that statistically significant contributors to the PUnCQ-1 were part 2 scores of the PUnCQ for the pain management factor (p = 0.016) and acquisition of the Cred.MDT (p = 0.038) (R
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.