Focused Clinical Question: What are the immediate effects of instrumented-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) application on measures of lower extremity range of motion, muscular power, and strength in physically active adults not currently suffering from a musculoskeletal injury? Clinical Bottom Line: Grade 1 evidence supports immediate improvements in lower extremity range of motion in physically active adults after IASTM application. However, the evidence is lacking to support IASTM to improve muscular power and strength. Therefore, additional research is warranted to determine the acute effects of IASTM use on muscular power and strength in healthy, physically active adults.

Background Instrument-assisted soft tissue mobilization (IASTM) is a commonly utilized intervention for musculoskeletal pain and dysfunction. However, little is known regarding the reliability of forces applied by clinicians of different experience levels during an IASTM intervention. Purpose The purpose of this pilot study was to assess intra-clinician reliability of IASTM force (i.e., mean normal force) during a simulated, one-handed stroke IASTM intervention across different levels of IASTM clinical experience. Design Descriptive laboratory study. Methods The researchers conducted a repeated measures trial in a laboratory setting with a convenience sample of ten participants who had previously completed professional IASTM training. Participants performed 15 one-handed sweeping strokes with an IASTM instrument on a skin simulant attached to a force plate for a standardized hypothetical treatment scenario. The participants performed the treatment on two separate days, 24-48 hours apart. The researchers examined the intra-rater reliability for average (mean) normal forces using Bland-Altman (BA) plots and Coefficient of Variation (CV) values. Results The BA plot results indicated all participants (professional athletic training students = 4, athletic trainers = 6; males = 5, females = 5; age = 32.60 ± 8.71 y; IASTM experience = 3.78 ± 4.10 y), except participant D (1.9N, 190g), were consistently reliable within 1N (100g) or less of force for mean differences and within the maximum limits of agreement around 3.7N (370g). Most participants’ CV scores ranged between 8 to 20% supporting reliable force application within each treatment session. Conclusion The data indicated that IASTM trained clinicians could produce consistent forces within and across treatment sessions irrespective of clinical experience. Level of Evidence 3

Focused Clinical Question: What are the effects of the Mulligan Concept combined with traditional physiotherapy on lateral elbow pain and grip strength in adults with lateral epicondylalgia (LE) compared with traditional physiotherapy? Clinical Bottom Line: Grade B evidence supports positive effects of the Mulligan Concept combined with traditional physiotherapy on LE compared with traditional physiotherapy alone. However, the effects of the Mulligan Concept as a standalone intervention in the treatment of LE are not well known. Therefore, additional research is warranted to determine the individual effects of the Mulligan Concept compared with its use in a comprehensive rehabilitation protocol to treat LE in adults.