Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40601785›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

"You do it to cover your own back": The assessment of cervical spine radiculopathy among physiotherapists in the United Kingdom: A mixed methods research study.

Michael Mansfield, Stephanie T Jong, Toby Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Michael MansfieldFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4258-8247
Stephanie T JongFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.
Toby SmithFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cervical spine radiculopathy [CSR] is a complex condition that is challenging to diagnose. The assessment methods used by United Kingdom [UK] physiotherapists to diagnose CSR remain unclear. A mixed-methods explanatory sequential design was used to investigate the assessment strategies that UK Health and Care Professions Council HCPC physiotherapists use and the reasons behind this decision-making in clinical practice. Phase 1 of the mixed methods research [MMR] study was a national online survey. The 63 respondents reported that the most common assessment strategies included muscle strength [94%], light touch sensation [78%] and reflex testing [89%]. Phase 2 of the MMR study included 11 qualitative interviews with Phase 1 [survey] participants. Four themes were established: perception of role, service constraints, minimising risk, and understanding symptoms. Physiotherapists often explained decision making in practice is based upon individual and organisational barriers. The choices available to physiotherapists may be based on cost, departmental knowledge and skill or convenience. However, the best available evidence suggests that physiotherapists should continue to use a biopsychosocial approach when establishing a CSR diagnosis. Physiotherapists should continue to embrace all assessment strategies available and strive to enhance or change practice.

Indexed as

Cervical VertebraePhysical TherapistsRadiculopathyAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID40601785
PMCPMC12221016

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.