Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of action observation therapy (AOT) compared with written information in patients submitted to a physical therapy program after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods: We conducted a prospective clinical trial. Twenty-four patients with THA, 62.5% female (aged 69.0 ± 8.5 years), received AOT in addition to conventional physical therapy (experimental group) or written information in addition to conventional physical therapy (exercise and information group) for 10 sessions. Outcomes used were visual analog scale, hip active and passive range of motion, Barthel Index, Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey, Tinetti Scale, and Lequesne Index measurements. All measures were collected at baseline and at the end of the intervention. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to examine the interventions effects within groups and between groups. Results: No relevant baseline differences were observed between groups. Both treatments produced statistically significant improvements on visual analog scale, active and passive range of motion, Barthel Index, SF-36, Tinetti Scale, and Lequesne Index immediately after the intervention (all, P b .001). SF-36 (physical functioning subscale) revealed a statistically significant intergroups difference (P = .02) after treatment. Conclusions: Both treatments were effective at improving pain, functional status, quality of life, and gait features in patients with primary THA. In addition to conventional physical therapy, AOT improved perceived physical function more than written information. Trial Registration Identifier: NCT02861638. (J Chiropr Med 2016;15:229-234)

Background:The handgrip strength test is widely used by clinicians; however, little has been investigated about its reliability when used in subjects with Parkinson disease (PD). The purpose of this study was to investigate the test-retest reliability of the handgrip strength test for subjects with PD. Methods: The PD group consisted of 15 patients, and the control group consisted of 15 healthy subjects. Each patient performed 3 pain-free maximal isometric contractions on each hand on 2 occasions, 1 week apart. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), standard error of measurement (SEM), and 95% limits of agreement (LOA) were calculated. The 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine the differences between sides and groups. Results: Test-retest reliability of measurements of grip strength was excellent for dominant (ICC = 0.97; P = .001) and non-dominant (ICC = 0.98; P = .001) hand of participant with PD and (ICC = 0.99; P = .001) and (ICC = 0.99; P = .001) respectively, of healthy group. Conclusions: The Jamar hand dynamometer had fair to excellent test-retest reliability to test grip strength in participants with PD.

INTRODUCTION In experimental trials, new methods are tested against the “best” or “usual” care. To appraise control group (CG) interventions provided as “usual care,” we focused on stroke as a leading cause of disability demanding rehabilitation as a complex intervention. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION For this methodological appraisal, we conducted a systematic review of RCTs without timespan limitation. The PICO included stroke survivors, rehabilitation, control group intervention, lower limb function. To assess the risk of bias, we used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB). We identified the terminology describing the CG Program (CGP), performed a knowledge synthesis and conducted a frequency analysis of provided interventions. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS We included 155 publications. 13.6% of the articles did not describe the CG, and 11.6% indicated only the professionals involved. In the remaining 116 studies, three studies provided an intervention according to specific guidelines, 106 different “usual care” CGPs were detected, with nine proposed twice and two between four and five times. The most adopted terminology to state “usual care” was “conventional physiotherapy.” CONCLUSIONS This study shows that usual care in CG does not actually exist, as both specific terminology and consistency within CGP contents are missing. Reporting guidelines should give better assistance on this issue. These results should be verified in other fields.

Female gender, high PI and high LL together with a low PL-C7 distance can be considered as protective factors for spinal imbalance and fall risk; negative factors are represented by male gender, longer disease duration, higher H&Y Class, and low PL-L3 distance. Looking at the pelvis is revealing new important insights in spinal disease management, both surgical and rehabilitative.

The left-side dominance could have a prevalence on trunk asymmetry in thoracic and thoraco-lumbar curves. Our study suggests that the clinical evaluation of trunk asymmetry should be associated with the evaluation of laterality.