ReviewEuropean journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine2026
Ultrasound-guided musculoskeletal interventions and professional boundaries: an international expert opinion.
Review in European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine, 2026. 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.
- Toward visualized pathophenotyping: a multimodal imaging-guided conceptual framework for chronic low back pain.Frontiers in medicine · 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The growth of musculoskeletal ultrasound (US) has led to an increasing trend of US-guided interventions also/sometimes being performed by allied health professionals who lack formal comprehensive medical training. This international expert opinion - developed through structured consultation among 20 Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (PRM) physicians from 14 countries across five continents - addresses the patient safety, ethical, and medicolegal concerns arising from non-physicians performing such interventions. A narrative literature synthesis was conducted and iteratively reviewed by all contributing authors whereas formal consensus methodology was not employed. Having reviewed the international regulatory landscape, including regulations from the United States, Europe (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Scandinavian countries, and the United Kingdom), and the Asia-Pacific region; we highlight inconsistencies that may compromise patient welfare. We call upon PRM associations to develop unified position statements establishing minimum competency standards. Policy recommendations would include establishing international complication registries, implementing enforceable supervision protocols, strengthening informed consent requirements, and ensuring transparent provider identification. Through these measures, professional organizations, regulators, and healthcare institutions can promote patient safety, transparency, and consistent standards worldwide.
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.