The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2025
Knowledge and use of thoracic manipulations by manual therapists in Belgium and the Netherlands.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sokolov Andrei, Beyer Benoît, Van Trijffel Emiel, Scafoglieri Aldo
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Beneficial effects of thoracic manipulations (TM) have been demonstrated; however, there is a lack of clarity regarding their use in clinical practice.
PURPOSE: To investigate the knowledge and use of TM in primary care manual therapy in Belgium and the Netherlands.
METHODS: An online survey hosted on Google Forms was designed and distributed across various platforms to manual therapists and students enrolled in a Master's/Postgraduate program in manual therapy. Data were collected regarding demographics, types of complaints, types of manipulation, and types of intervention. Participation occurred between 1 November 2022 and 31 July 2024.
RESULTS: One hundred and seven surveys were analyzed. Thoracic complaints treated with TM were mostly muscular in origin (94%). Most participants (79%) did not utilize a specific screening tool, instead relying on clinical experience to exclude red flags. The majority agreed that metabolic bone diseases and metastatic diseases (n = 92) are contraindications and that thoracic fractures (n = 77) are a risk factor for TM. Almost half (44%) did not differentiate between the upper and lower thoracic spine. TM for other regions, mostly for the cervical spine (94%), was considered. TM was preferred for its biomechanical effects, followed by neurophysiological and placebo effects.
CONCLUSION: Most clinicians rely on experience rather than a pre-screening tool when assessing the thoracic region, focussing on excluding red flags and determining indications for TM, with biomechanical effects being the most favored rationale. Although most findings showed agreement, some inconsistencies were noted regarding screening and rationale, highlighting the importance of clinical reasoning for safe TM practice.
PURPOSE: To investigate the knowledge and use of TM in primary care manual therapy in Belgium and the Netherlands.
METHODS: An online survey hosted on Google Forms was designed and distributed across various platforms to manual therapists and students enrolled in a Master's/Postgraduate program in manual therapy. Data were collected regarding demographics, types of complaints, types of manipulation, and types of intervention. Participation occurred between 1 November 2022 and 31 July 2024.
RESULTS: One hundred and seven surveys were analyzed. Thoracic complaints treated with TM were mostly muscular in origin (94%). Most participants (79%) did not utilize a specific screening tool, instead relying on clinical experience to exclude red flags. The majority agreed that metabolic bone diseases and metastatic diseases (n = 92) are contraindications and that thoracic fractures (n = 77) are a risk factor for TM. Almost half (44%) did not differentiate between the upper and lower thoracic spine. TM for other regions, mostly for the cervical spine (94%), was considered. TM was preferred for its biomechanical effects, followed by neurophysiological and placebo effects.
CONCLUSION: Most clinicians rely on experience rather than a pre-screening tool when assessing the thoracic region, focussing on excluding red flags and determining indications for TM, with biomechanical effects being the most favored rationale. Although most findings showed agreement, some inconsistencies were noted regarding screening and rationale, highlighting the importance of clinical reasoning for safe TM practice.