The Adheremeter showed a good level of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Further studies are needed to confirm these results in larger cohorts and to assess the device's validity for other types of scars.

Patient’s satisfaction with device is an important clinical outcome in prosthetics and orthotics. The Client Satisfaction with Device (CSD) – one of the five modules of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users’ Survey (OPUS) – has been defined as the only outcome measure specifically developed to measure user satisfaction with a prosthesis or an orthosis. The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive review of the psychometric properties of the CSD, summarizing the present evidence on this measure, and verifying if the scoring system is consistent in the literature. A systematic literature search was conducted utilizing PRISMA guidelines. Articles were searched in PubMed and Scopus databases using search terms relating to the psychometric properties of the CSD. Thirteen articles assessing the psychometric properties of the CSD met the inclusion criteria for this review. The CSD has been translated and validated in several languages. However, these versions are not consistent across the studies since they include different number of items, with different number of response options, and scoring systems. The CSD – where used in its eight-item version, rated with a four-point rating scale – can be judged as a tool with acceptable psychometric properties for assessing satisfaction with devices in prosthesis and orthosis users. This CSD version seems the best one for optimizing coverage and psychometric quality with the fewest number of items. Further studies are warranted to assess the degree of suitability of this scale in specific populations of users of prostheses or orthoses and to analyze its psychometric properties in further cultural contexts.

This systematic review shows international interest of researchers in the CAS, despite the short time frame since its first publication in 2006. The results support the reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of the tool. Since different versions of CAS are available and two scores are commonly used, we suggest that clinicians and researchers in the future choose the more detailed CAS2 version, already used by the large majority of studies, and report whether they used the 1- or 3-day score.

Capacitive and resistive electric transfer (CRET) therapy is a physical treatment modality commonly used to treat musculoskeletal pain. It normally uses a longwave radiofrequency of ~0.5 MHz. The system consists of a neutral plate and two different electrodes that can transfer energy in two modalities: capacitive and resistive. The aim of this systematic review was to identify and summarize the available data in the literature on this physical modality. From a search of articles published before December 2019 in MEDLINE and Scopus indexed journals, we retrieved 276 articles, 13 of which met the inclusion criteria for this review. Most articles dealt with musculoskeletal disorders, mainly spine disorders and knee osteoarthritis. More than 75% of the studies used a similar range of frequency (440–600 KHz). Almost all described an improvement in strength and function and reduced pain intensity after the treatment. Although nine of the 13 studies (70%) were randomized controlled trials, only two had a low risk of bias according to the Cochrane library assessment tool. CRET seems to be an effective therapy to decrease pain, and improve the quality of life and disability of patients affected by musculoskeletal disorders. There is no study on symptoms of patients with neurological disorders. Further research is necessary to standardize the therapeutic protocols across different orthopedic diseases, and to assess the benefits of CRET in other fields such as neurological or rheumatologic disorders.

Manual therapies are frequently recommended to improve post-surgical scar pliability, e.g., its elasticity and glide capacity with respect to the underlying tissue. A significant percentage of scars are pathological, causing pain, functional/psychological disorders, or cosmetic damage. Hence, early identification of a pathological post-surgical scar is crucial for prompt treatment so as to optimize and evaluate outcome. Scar assessment tools provide data on objective parameters as the basis for planning treatment. While the published literature contains many reviews on validated tools for post-surgical scar assessment, none specifically analyzes tools for use in the rehabilitative setting. The aim of this focused review was thus to illustrate the tools-instruments, scales and questionnaires-validated to assess post-surgical scar pliability in rehabilitation. A literature search was conducted on articles published in journals indexed by PubMed before October 15, 2014. The literature search produced 72 papers, 6 of which met our inclusion criteria. These 6 articles deal with the validation of 5 different tools to assess post-surgical scar. Three are devices aimed to assess different pliability characteristics: Adheremeter (degree of scar adherence), Cutometer (elasticity), and Tissue Ultrasound Palpation System (scar thickness). The other two are rating scales developed for general scar assessment (Vancouver Scar Scale, and Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale). As the efficacy of manual therapy on post-surgical scar is still debated, it is desirable that in the future increasing use be made of validated tools as outcome measures of the rehabilitation treatment.