Figure 14 (abstract P18) Papers research and selection
Related Figures (38)
Fig. 2 (abstract $6) Passive Lumbar Extension test Fig. 1 (abstract $6) Aberrant Movements Fig. 3 (abstract S6) Supine Bridge test Assessment of joint mobility: state of the art Fig. 4 (abstract $8) Relationship between respiratory diaphragm, abdominal wall, pelvic floor muscles and rachis in incorrect expiratory pattern with incompetence of abdominal wall Fig. 5 (abstract P2) Neck retraction movement Fig. 6 (abstract P4) Flow diagram showing the different phases of studies selection Fig. 7 (abstract P5) The elevation was performed following the passive movement of the lever of an isokinetic dynamometer (Biodex® System 4 pro) that moved with the correct speed and direction Fig. 8 (abstract P6) Topics of MLBP rehabilitation interventions in published RCTs: a trend over time Fig. 9 (abstract P8) Trend of reporting of sample size calculation over time Legend: VSS Vancouver Scar Scale, DLQ/ Dermatology Life Quality Index, MSS Manchester Scar Scale, POSAS Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, Bock QoL Bock Quality of Life questionnaire, SBSES Stony Brook Scar Evaluation Scale, PRISM Patient-Reported Impact of Scars Measure, PSAQ Patient Scar Assessment Questionnaire, HADS Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, GWB/ General Well-Being Index, VAS Visual Analogue Scale, /CC Intraclass Correlation Coefficient Table 1 (abstract P12) Psychometric properties of scar rating scales based on classical test theory (Continued) Fig. 10 (abstract P12) Flow of studies through the revie OCSP Oxfordshire Community Stroke Project classification, TACS total anterior circulation syndrome, PACS partial anterior circulation syndrome, LACS lacunar syndrome, POCS posterior circulation syndrome, SPMSQ Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire, MAS modified Ashworth scale, ROM range of motion Table 2 (abstract P15) Patients’ demographic and clinica characteristics Table 3 (abstract P16) Instruments scores before and after treatment (data expressed as mean + SD) ODI-I Oswestry Disability Index, Italian version, NRS Numerical Rating Scale, C/ Confidence interval, PBT Prone Bridge Test, SBT Supine Bridge Test Fig. 13 (abstract P17) A model of stabilization exercises according to O'Sullivan approach (modified from: O' Sullivan P, Lumbar segmental instability: clinical presentation and specific stabilizing exercises Management) Fig. 15 (abstract P18) “Iceberg” tendinopathies. Relation between overuse - time and tendinopathies underhand onset Fig. 16 (abstract P19) Range of motion increase with different durations of the Roller-Massager intervention Fig. 17 (abstract P21) The learning-of-the-job- project: meetings and individual study Fig. 18 (abstract P22) Distance in meters (D) covered at TO and T1 Fig. 19 (abstract 23) Representation of the experimental procedure. The angles of occurrence in range of pain onset (PO) and submaximal pain (SP) during elbow extension in ULNT1 were recorded; then the angle between PO and SP was calculated for each ULNT1 execution Fig. 20 (abstract P24) Subject performing the bipodalic test on foam pad Table 9 (abstract 25) Values of the various outcomes measured at DO (pre- treatment), D1 (1 month after treatment) and D2 (3 months after the last treatment) References Consistency in locating pressure stimuli over the lumbar spine on a digital body chart: a comparison between chronic low back pain patients and healthy subjects — Fig. 21 (abstract P26) a Representation of the 45 locations for pressure stimuli over the body chart. b Example of pressure location on the body chart of a CLBP subject. Pink areas represent the pain locations of the subject. Small circles represent the pressure locations while the larger circles represent their barycenters MAS Modified Ashworth Scale, MMAS Modified Modified Ashworth Scale, P poor, F fair a parralatinn cracfficiant ~1 70 Table 11 (abstract P29) Intra-rater reliability (muscle groups) Introduction Table 10 (abstract P29) Reliability (scales as a whole) AS Asworth Scale, MAS Modified Ashworth Scale, MMAS Modified Modified Ashworth Scale, P poor, F fair * correlation coefficient >0.70 Fig. 22 (abstract P33) Blood pressure a, heart rate b, oximetry ¢ during tilt-table training, with and without FES. Data are mean, error bars indicate 95% confidence interval Fig. 24 (abstract P35) The ROC curve evaluates diagnostic ability of tests to discriminate the true state of subjects, finding the optimal cut off values. To determine the optimal cut-off point, we maximized sensitivity and specificity incorporating ethical issues for correct and false diagnosis. Thus, priority was given to higher sensitivity level to avoid the risk of not correctly diagnosing (and including to treatment) patients who had pathological scars.Total and overall scores of the PSAS and OSAS were plotted; solid dots -a, b, c, and d- represent the optimal cut-off point for each score, respectively Table 18 (abstract P41) Language levels according to the ADOS system Fig. 27 (abstract P45) Study flow chart AM Aberrant Movements, ASLR Active Straight Leg Raise, NRS Numerical Rating Scale, ODI-| Oswestry Disability Index- Italian Version, PBT Prone Bridge Test, PIT Prone Instability Test, PLE Passive Lumbar Extension Test, SBT Supine Bridge Test Fig. 28 (abstract P46) Flow of studies through the review. The following search strategy was used: (smartphone OR “smart phone” OR iPhone OR Android OR IOS OR BlackBerry OR “Windows phone” OR app OR apps) AND (rehabilitation OR physiotherapy OR “physica therapy” OR quantification OR measure OR assessment) therapists (Continued) Table 22 (abstract P47) Baseline (TO) and post-treatment (T1) assess- ment and pre-post comparisons in the Sensory-Motor Training Protocol (SMTP) group and in the Amadeo® Robotic System (ARS) group MI Motricity Index, FMA Fugl-Meyer Assessment, MMT Manual Muscle Test, BBT Box and Block Test, F/M Functional Independence Measure, MAS Modified Ashworth Scale Fig. 29 (abstract P47) Mean pre-post treatment changes P49 Results and conclusions Fig. 30 (abstract P49) Instrument-assisted augmented soft-tissue mobilization technique applied to Achilles tendon (a), gastrocnemius (b), soleus (€) and hamstrings muscles (d) *10’ at 100 Watts, 100-110 rpm (revolution per minute) + 5’ at 150 Watts, 70 rpm + 3’ at 200 Watts, 80 rpm + 2’ at 250 Watts, 90 rpm (sequence repeated twice; heart rate training target: 120-140 heart beats per minute)
