ObjectiveThis pilot study aimed to inform future research evaluating the effectiveness of Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) injection for tendinopathy.DesignRandomized control trial (RCT) and synchronous observational cohort studies. For the RCT, consecutive consenting patients treated at an academic sports medicine clinic were randomly assigned to either a PRP or placebo control group.SettingThe Glen Sather Sport Medicine Clinic, Edmonton, Canada.PatientsThe RCT included 9 participants with rotator cuff tendinopathy. The cohort study included 178 participants with a variety of tendinopathies.InterventionsPatients receiving PRP were injected with 4 ml of platelets into the supraspinatus and/or infraspinatus, while patients in the placebo group were injected with 4ml of saline. All participants undertook a 3-month standardized, home-based, daily exercise program.Main Outcome MeasuresParticipants in the RCT were re-evaluated 3, and 6 months post-injection. Change scores before and after injection on pain, disability and MRI-documented pathology outcomes were compared. In the cohort study, pain and disability were measured at 1, 2 and 3 months post-injection.ResultsFor the RCT, 7 participants received PRP and 2 received placebo injections. Patients receiving PRP reported clinically important improvements in pain (>1.5/10 on VAS), disability (>15 point DASH change), and tendon pathology while those receiving placebo injections did not. In the observational cohort, statistically and clinically significant improvements in pain and disability were observed.ConclusionThis pilot study provides information for planning future studies of PRP effectiveness. Preliminary results indicate intratendinous, ultrasound-guided PRP injection may lead to improvements in pain, function, and MRI-documented tendon pathology.Trial RegistrationControlled-Trials.com ISRCTN68341698

Purpose: To examine the reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of the 20-item version and the Rasch-refined 15-item version of the Upper Extremity Functional Index (UEFI-20 and UEFI-15, respectively) and to determine the impact of arm dominance on the positive minimal clinically important difference (pMCID). Methods: Adults with upper-extremity (UE) dysfunction completed the UEFI-20, Upper Extremity Functional Scale (UEFS), Pain Limitation Scale, and Pain Intensity Scale at their initial physiotherapy assessment (Time 1); 24-48 hours later (Time 2); and 3 weeks into treatment or at discharge, whichever came first (Time 3). Demographics, including working status, were obtained at Time 1. Global ratings of change (GRC) were provided by the treating physiotherapist and patient at Time 3. The UEFI-15 was calculated from relevant items in the UEFI-20. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and minimal detectable change (MDC) quantified test-retest reliability (Time 1-Time 2). Cross-sectional convergent validity was determined by the association (Pearson's r) between Time 1 measures of function and pain. Known-groups validity was evaluated with a one-way ANOVA across three levels of working status. Longitudinal validity was determined by the association (Pearson's r) between function and pain change scores (Time 1-Time 3). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves estimated the pMCID using Time 1-Time 3 change scores and average patient/therapist GRC. Results: Reliability for the UEFI-20 and UEFI-15 was the same (ICC ¼ 0.94 for both measures). MDC values were 9.4/80 for the UEFI-20 and 8.8/100 for the UEFI-15. Crosssectional, known-groups, and longitudinal validity were confirmed for both UEFI measures. pMCID values were 8/80 for the UEFI-20 and 6.7/100 for the UEFI-15; pMCID was higher for people whose non-dominant arm was affected. Conclusions: Both UEFI measures show acceptable reliability and validity. Arm dominance affects pMCID. The UEFI-15 is recommended because it measures only one dimension: UE function.

Purpose: Physiotherapy is a diverse profession: there are many areas in which physiotherapists can practise. New graduates must decide in which area of physiotherapy they would like to work and with which organizations to seek employment. The purpose of this study was to describe the factors that influenced the career (area of practice, practice setting) and employment (organization) decisions of recent physiotherapy graduates. Method: Given Canada’s vast expanse, we used survey methodology. We invited English-speaking physiotherapists who had completed their physiotherapy education between October 2015 and December 2017 to participate in this study. The survey was emailed to 1,442 physiotherapists in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and Nova Scotia. Results: We collected 351 responses (24%). Almost all respondents reported currently working as a physiotherapist, and the majority worked with patients with musculoskeletal conditions. Clinical education experiences were most influential in determining career decisions. Area of practice, practice setting, and mentorship were the most influential factors contributing to employment decisions. Conclusions: Clinical education experiences are influential in shaping physiotherapy students’ career and employment decisions. Employers who want to recruit physiotherapy graduates may consider partnering with physiotherapy programmes to offer clinical placement experiences and develop mentorship programmes that help build novice physiotherapists’ competence and confidence.