Search

Abstract Background Cervical radiculopathy (CR) is a common condition, often associated with cervicogenic headache (CGH), a secondary headache arising from cervical spine disorders. Mechanical intermittent cervical traction (MICT) is frequently prescribed to treat CR symptoms. The purpose of the study was to make a preliminary estimate of efficacy of adding MICT to conventional rehabilitation on CGH in patients with cervical radiculopathy. Methods A total of 36 CR patients with CGH were randomly allocated to 3 equally sized groups (A, B and C). The treatment consisted of twelve sessions of conventional rehabilitation (4 weeks) combined with MICT (2 kg for group A, 8 kg for group B and 12 kg for group C). Primary outcomes were CGH intensity (visual analog scale) and frequency (days per week). Secondary outcomes were radicular pain intensity (visual analog scale), cervical range of motion (cervical range of motion instrument), proprioception (cervical range of motion instrument) and muscle strength (MicroFET2 dynamometer), handgrip strength (handheld dynamometer), function (Neck Disability Index), kinesiophobia (Tampa Scale for KInesiophobia), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depresion questionnaire), and quality of life (World Health Organization Quality of Life). Patients were assessed at baseline, one, three and six months after the beginning of treatment. The post hoc Dunn testing was used to determine which traction load had the better effect on CGH symptoms. Results At one, three and six months follow-ups, Group C exhibited the highest improvement in CGH intensity and frequency compared to the other groups (p = 0.021 and p = 0.023; p = 0.012 and p = 0.01; p = 0.005 and p = 0.005). Both groups C and B showed a significant improvement in radicular pain compared to group A at one month follow-up (p = 0.05).The improvement in group C was significantly better in terms of function (p = 0.049) and anxiety (p = 0.011) at three months and quality of life at six months (Psychological p = 0.046 and Environment p = 0.006). Conclusions The blend of conventional rehabilitation alongside 12 kg MICT seems to be efficacious in diminishing both the intensity and frequency of CGH in patients with CR. These advantages appear to last for up to six months following the treatment period, potentially leading to decreased CGH severity and occurrence rates, heightened functionality, reduced anxiety levels, and an overall enhancement in quality of life. These findings are preliminary and require confirmation in larger trials. Trial registration The study protocol was retrospectively registered at the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry (PACTR202401838955948). Date of registration is 16/01/2024.

Background The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript’s quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks. Methods Opinion article. Aim To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates. Results Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific “response to reviews” along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented. Conclusion By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts’ quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement.

Background The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript’s quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks. Methods Opinion article. Aim To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates. Results Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific “response to reviews” along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented. Conclusion By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts’ quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement.

Background The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript’s quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks. Methods Opinion article. Aim To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates. Results Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific “response to reviews” along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented. Conclusion By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts’ quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement.

Background The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript’s quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks. Methods Opinion article. Aim To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates. Results Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific “response to reviews” along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented. Conclusion By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts’ quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement.

Background The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript’s quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks. Methods Opinion article. Aim To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates. Results Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific “response to reviews” along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented. Conclusion By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts’ quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement.

Background The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript’s quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks. Methods Opinion article. Aim To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates. Results Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific “response to reviews” along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented. Conclusion By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts’ quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement.

Background Understanding the epidemiology of soccer injuries during specific international competitions is essential for customizing preventive strategies. Several studies have reported outcomes related to international competitions but, to the best of our knowledge, there has been no investigation into the injury patterns during any African Cup of Nations (AFCON) tournaments. This study aimed to analyse the incidence and the characteristics of soccer injuries during the 2021 African Cup of Nations (AFCON), which took place in Cameroon from January 9 to February 6, 2022. Methods A video-based analysis covering 52 matches was conducted by two independent consultant physicians. They reviewed injury replays to determine incidence and characteristics ( i.e. ; mechanisms, body location, match moment, player substitution, absence in the next match, and referee decisions). Results The tournament involved 519 male players, comprising 275 African (ALP) and 244 Non-African (NALP) league players. Eighty-seven injuries occurred, with incidences of 1.7 and 48.8 injuries per match and per 1000 match hours, respectively. Injury incidence rose with competition stages, particularly contact mechanism injuries. Non-contact injuries (23/87) predominantly occurred after 60 minutes of play (19/23), with the thigh being the most frequently affected body part (18/87). Older age and playing time significantly correlated with injury occurrence (p=0.032 and p Conclusion Muscle injuries prevailed among professional soccer players in the 2021 AFCON, with older age and playing time identified as key associated factors. Muscle injuries were more prevalent in ALP compared to NALP.

Background: Cervical radiculopathy (CR) is a common condition, often associated with cervicogenic headache (CGH), a secondary headache arising from cervical spine disorders. Mechanical intermittent cervical traction (MICT) is frequently prescribed to treat CR symptoms. The purpose of the study was to make a preliminary estimate of efficacy of adding MICT to conventional rehabilitation on CGH in patients with cervical radiculopathy. Methods: A total of 36 CR patients with CGH were randomly allocated to 3 equally sized groups (A, B and C). The treatment consisted of twelve sessions of conventional rehabilitation (4 weeks) combined with MICT (2 kg for group A, 8 kg for group B and 12 kg for group C). Primary outcomes were CGH intensity (visual analog scale) and frequency (days per week). Secondary outcomes were radicular pain intensity (visual analog scale), cervical range of motion (cervical range of motion instrument), proprioception (cervical range of motion instrument) and muscle strength (MicroFET2 dynamometer), handgrip strength (handheld dynamometer), function (Neck Disability Index), kinesiophobia (Tampa Scale for KInesiophobia), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depresion questionnaire), and quality of life (World Health Organization Quality of Life). Patients were assessed at baseline, one, three and six months after the beginning of treatment. The post hoc Dunn testing was used to determine which traction load had the better effect on CGH symptoms. Results: At one, three and six months follow-ups, Group C exhibited the highest improvement in CGH intensity and frequency compared to the other groups (p = 0.021 and p = 0.023; p = 0.012 and p = 0.01; p = 0.005 and p = 0.005). Both groups C and B showed a significant improvement in radicular pain compared to group A at one month follow-up (p = 0.05).The improvement in group C was significantly better in terms of function (p = 0.049) and anxiety (p = 0.011) at three months and quality of life at six months (Psychological p = 0.046 and Environment p = 0.006). Conclusions: The blend of conventional rehabilitation alongside 12 kg MICT seems to be efficacious in diminishing both the intensity and frequency of CGH in patients with CR. These advantages appear to last for up to six months following the treatment period, potentially leading to decreased CGH severity and occurrence rates, heightened functionality, reduced anxiety levels, and an overall enhancement in quality of life. These findings are preliminary and require confirmation in larger trials. Trial registration: The study protocol was retrospectively registered at the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry (PACTR202401838955948). Date of registration is 16/01/2024. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Cervical traction is effective on pain and function in patients with cervical radiculopathy but its effectiveness on balance disorders has not yet been studied. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of mechanical intermittent cervical traction (MICT) on stabilometric parameters in patients with cervical radiculopathy. METHODS: This randomized crossover study assigned 20 patients with cervical radiculopathy to one of the two groups: Group effective traction (ET)/sham traction (ST) (n = 10) treated firstly with ET (traction force of 12 Kg) then with ST (traction force of 2 Kg) with one-week interval and group ST/ET (n = 10) treated invertedly with a ST then ET. Each traction procedure was maintained for 10 minutes twice separated by 5 minutes of rest. Patients were assessed before and immediately after MICT procedure. Main outcome measures were stabilometric parameters: center of pressure, sway area and lateral and anteroposterior displacements using a force platform. Secondary outcome measures were pain intensity, grip strength and dizziness. RESULTS: ET has provided a significantly greater improvement in both groups and in the total population in terms of stabilometric parameters (p < 0.01), pain intensity, and grip strength (p < 0.05), compared to ST. CONCLUSION: MICT seems to have an immediate beneficial effect on stabilometric parameters, pain and grip strength in patients with cervical radiculopathy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Matériaux et Techniques is the property of EDP Sciences and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript's quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks., Methods: Opinion article., Aim: To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates., Results: Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific "response to reviews" along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented., Conclusion: By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts' quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2024 Hidouri S et al.)