Background: Psychosocial factors are not routinely identified in physical therapy assessments, although they can influence the prognosis of patients with low back pain. The "STarT Back Screening Tool" (SBST) questionnaire aids in screening such patients for poor prognosis in the primary care setting and classifies them as high, medium, or low risk based on physical and psychosocial factors. Objectives: This study sought to translate and cross-culturally adapt the SBST to the Brazilian Portuguese language and test the reliability of the Brazilian version. Method: The first stage of the study consisted of the translation, synthesis, and back-translation of the original version of the STSB, including revision by the Translation Group, pretest of the translated version, and assessment by an expert panel. The pre-final Brazilian version was applied to 2 samples comprising 52 patients with low back pain; these patients were of both genders and older than 18 years of age. To assess the instrument's reliability, an additional sample comprising 50 patients was subjected to 2 interviews, and the results were assessed using the quadratic weighted kappa value. The instrument's internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha (n=105), and the standard error of measurement was also calculated (n=50). Results: Translation and back-translation attained consensus, and only item 6 required changes; the reformulated version was applied to an additional sample comprising 52 individuals who did not report any doubts related to this item. The reliability of the SBST-Brazil was 0.79 (95% confidence interval: 0.63-0.95), the internal consistency was 0.74 for the total score and 0.72 for the psychosocial subscale, and the standard error of measurement was 1.9%. Conclusion: The translated and cross-culturally adapted SBST-Brazil proved to be reliable for screening patients according to their risk of poor prognosis and the presence of psychosocial factors.

| Background: Previous studies have shown a relationship between shoulder posterior capsule tightness and shoulder pain in overhead athletes. However, this relationship has not been studied in tennis players. Objectives: Assessment of the shoulder range of motion (ROM), strength and posterior capsule tightness of skilled amateur tennis players who had complaints of dominant shoulder pain in comparison with tennis players without pain. Method: Fortynine skilled amateur tennis players were distributed in 2 groups: Control Group (n=22) and Painful Group (n=27). The first group was composed of asymptomatic subjects, and the second was composed of subjects with shoulder pain on the dominant side. These groups were evaluated to determine the dominant and non-dominant shoulder ROM (internal and external rotation), isometric shoulder strength (internal and external rotation) and posterior shoulder tightness by blind evaluators. Results: The ANOVA results indicated significant differences between the groups in the dominant shoulder ROM, posterior capsule tightness, external rotation strength and strength ratio (p<0.05). The intragroup analysis (dominant versus non-dominant) in the Painful Group displayed a significant difference for ROM, posterior capsule tightness and external rotation strength (p<0.05). Conclusions: The tennis players with pain in the dominant shoulder presented greater posterior capsule tightness, internal rotation deficit (ROM), external rotation gain (ROM) and deficits in external rotation strength than the tennis players without pain.Keywords:physical therapy; rehabilitation; tennis; rotator cuff; Shoulder Impingement Syndrome. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLEMarcondes FB, Jesus JF, Bryk FF, Vasconcelos RA, Fukuda TY. Posterior shoulder tightness and rotator cuff strength assessments in painful shoulders of amateur tennis players. Braz J Phys Ther.

No abstract

There is no advantage in increasing the number of sessions of combined therapy in terms of reducing generalized pain, quality of life and sleep quality for patients with FM.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) is an important tool in clinical practice to improve the recruitment of motor units. Optimal forms of NMES, as well as the optimal frequency to achieve the highest torque with the least possible discomfort are not well established. This study was designed to compare maximum electrically-induced torque (MEIT) in the quadriceps, the maximum intensity tolerated by the subject, and the level of discomfort generated by three types of stimulation. METHODS: Thirty subjects (mean age of 25.0 ± 3.0 years) participated in the study. Each subject was submitted to three currents: medium frequency (2500 Hz) modulated in low frequency (Russian Current), and two currents of low frequency (50 Hz), i.e. without an intrapulse interval (FES), and another with an intrapulse interval of 100 µs (VMS). The maximum voluntary isometric torque (MVIT) of the quadriceps was measured. The MEIT, the level of discomfort, and the maximum intensity reached were also measured while applying the three types of NMES. The order of the tests was randomized and the torque was normalized in relation to MVIT. RESULTS:The results showed no significant difference between the three types of NMES in relation to the generated torque. However, the subjects were able to tolerate a significantly higher intensity with the medium frequency current, and suffered less discomfort when compared to subjects exposed to low frequency currents. CONCLUSION: Russian Current, FES, and VMS can be used clinically in order to increase the torque of the quadriceps muscle. However, we suggest using the Russian Current in the early stages of a rehabilitation protocol because it showed better tolerance by the participants with less discomfort.