Search

Background: A wide range of outcome measures is available for the assessment of individuals with shoulder disorders. Since outcome measures are used to orientate treatment decision-making, clinicians must make sure that the ones they intend to use present adequate properties for their clinical purpose. Objectives: To review the psychometric evidence relating to five categories of shoulder outcome measures: range of motion, scapular position and motion, strength, functional performance, and self-report questionnaires. Validity, reliability, and responsiveness were reviewed for each category. Major findings: For most of the shoulder outcomes reviewed, evidence relating to relative reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients) and construct validity was favorable. Globally, intrarater and test-retest reliability indices were excellent, while interrater indices were good to excellent. Favorable evidence on responsiveness (effect size, standardized response mean, clinically important difference) and absolute reliability (minimal detectable change) was also found for self-report questionnaires. However, for range of motion, scapular position and motion, strength and functional performance tests, evidence on responsiveness and absolute reliability was limited or non-existent. Conclusions: Self-reported scales, such as the DASH, ASES, WORC, or WOSI, should be first line tests as they are highly responsive. Furthermore, they are the only shoulder outcomes for which most useful clinical benchmarks are established, such as minimal detectable change or clinically important difference. As for more conventional measures such as range of motion and strength, while still clinically relevant, they require further investigations to define their responsiveness, minimal detectable change, or clinically important difference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We compared biomechanical and subjective data from outdoor running in: habitual (OWN), Saucony Endorphin Racer 2 minimal (FLAT) and Nike Vaporfly 4% (VP4) shoes. We also explored relationships between comfort measures and the collected data. Eighteen male recreational runners ran three 1.5-km trials outdoors, once per shoe. The first 1.1 km was run at a self-selected comfortable (slower) speed, and last 400 m at perceived 5-km race pace (faster). A GPS-enabled smartwatch, 15-m Optojump system, high-speed camera and tibial accelerometer collected biomechanical data. Subjective data on comfort, shoe properties and overall running experience were collected using visual analogue scales (VAS) and rankings. Cadence, leg stiffness and vertical stiffness were greater in FLAT than both OWN and VP4 at the slower speed (trivial to small ES). At both speeds, footstrike angles were smaller in FLAT (small to large ES), while propulsion phase was shorter in VP4 (moderate to large ES). FLAT was ranked as the least comfortable at the slower speed and most likely to cause injury, whereas OWN as the most comfortable and least likely to cause injury. Comfort was not significantly different at the faster speed between shoes. Comfort measures were more strongly correlated to subjective than biomechanical data. The two experimental shoes generally had non-significant or small effects on running biomechanics versus OWN. As VP4 are more like traditional than minimal shoes, these were perceived as more comfortable. Running speed appeared to affect subjective measures. Speed should be considered when prescribing and selecting shoes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objectives of this study were (1) to compare opinions of runners and non-runners about running footwear, and (2) to identify where runners seek information when selecting their shoes. Using an online survey, we collected data on demographics and opinions about running footwear in runners and in non-runners. Runners answered additional questions about their training, running experience, and sources of information. Questions about running shoes were the same for both groups. These addressed opinions about the influence of footwear on injuries, performance and biomechanics, as well as the opinion about appropriate footwear features for novice runners, children or overweight individuals. In total, 1601 responses (59% runners, 41% non-runners) were analyzed. With the exception of kids' running shoes recommendations, runners and non-runners shared similar perceptions towards running shoes. In addition, runners mostly relied on running stores, sports stores, the internet, running clubs or magazines when seeking information about running shoes. Some opinions of runners may not be in line with the current literature. Given the similar perceptions in runners and non-runners, our findings suggest that runners' knowledge is mostly influenced by popular beliefs rather than scientific evidence. Thus, runners might benefit from evidence-based education initiatives on footwear, although it remains unknown if this could benefit running performance or injury rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to compare the effects of low load resistance combined with blood flow restriction (BFR) versus conventional quadriceps strengthening on knee symptoms and function as well as knee extensor strength and muscle thickness in adults with knee conditions. LITERATURE SURVEY: Guidelines based on the latest evidence highlight the importance of quadriceps strengthening to reduce pain and improve function in patients with knee conditions. Blood flow restriction is based on brief periods of vascular occlusion which cause muscle hypertrophy and increased strength. Before it can be recommended for individuals with knee conditions, quadriceps strengthening with low load resistance combined with BFR (LL-BFR) must show beneficial effects on clinical outcomes in addition to quadriceps strength and mass. METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to identify relevant studies through PubMed, PEDro, and ScienceDirect up to January 2019. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019121306). Differences in pre- and post-intervention means and standard deviations were extracted to calculate the standardized mean difference for each intervention in each included study. SYNTHESIS: Eight studies were included. Limited evidence suggests that LL-BFR is more beneficial on quadriceps strength and thickness in patients with knee conditions than LL training alone or in addition to a rehabilitation program. Limited evidence indicates that LL-BFR training is equally effective in improving function and muscle thickness compared with a HL quadriceps strengthening program but elicits less knee pain, corresponding to additional benefits of 22 (95% confidence interval 1 to 43) mm on a 0–100 mm visual analogue scale. CONCLUSIONS: BFR could be a useful option for patients with knee conditions where conventional quadriceps strengthening program exacerbate knee symptoms. Future investigations should compare different BFR protocols to help establish better guidelines for clinicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]