Optimal daily total end range time for contracture:

Glasgow, Celeste; Wilton, Judith; Tooth, Leigh

doi:10.1016/s0894-1130(03)00036-x

Cited by 99 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It seems that end range must be maintained for at least 6 to 12 hours per day in order to receive maximal improvement. 55,56 Specifically, Prosser 56 reported that a mean TERT of 10 hours daily yielded functionally superior results compared with less time spent at end range. These data suggest the potential for the application of such techniques to the vocal folds through the use of prolonged vocal fold elongation associated with high pitches.…”

Section: Wound Healing Therapymentioning

confidence: 99%

Vocal Fold Wound Healing: A Review for Clinicians

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Wound Healing Therapymentioning

confidence: 99%

Vocal Fold Wound Healing: A Review for Clinicians

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, the majority of studies agree that the UG has fair intraexaminer reliability but poor intertester reliability [1,24,33]. Intertester ICCs range from 0.26 to 0.99 [8,26]. Some studies have poor methodologic quality [33].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity of Goniometric Elbow Measurements: Comparative Study with a Radiographic Method

Chapleau

Canet

Petit

et al. 2011

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

136

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the end, a total of 14 papers discussing the use of static progressive orthoses of the upper extremity were included in the review, including 12 studies and two systematic reviews. Two additional randomized clinical trials (RCTs) [6,8] on the use of mobilization orthoses are also included in this review, for a total of 16 publications. Although these two RCTs do not describe static progressive orthoses specifically, they do provide important information on key concepts of orthotics for mobilization [6,8].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two additional randomized clinical trials (RCTs) [6,8] on the use of mobilization orthoses are also included in this review, for a total of 16 publications. Although these two RCTs do not describe static progressive orthoses specifically, they do provide important information on key concepts of orthotics for mobilization [6,8]. Each of the included studies was critically appraised using MacDermid's Structured Effectiveness for Quality Evaluation of Study (SEQES) [13].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Static Progressive Orthoses for the Upper Extremity: A Comprehensive Literature Review

Schwartz¹

2011

Hand (New York, N,Y.)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Static progressive orthoses are commonly used in the treatment of stiff joints or joint contractures of the upper extremity, but there are few high-quality studies to support this intervention. In addition, there has not been a recently published review of the current literature describing this treatment technique and the outcomes achieved. The specific purpose of this comprehensive literature review is to investigate the current levels of evidence supporting the use of static progressive orthoses in the treatment of joint stiffness or contracture in clients with orthopedic conditions of the upper extremity. This review will also discuss common diagnoses of patients and outcomes achieved, as well as provide recommendations for future hand therapy practice. Methods A computerized database search of publications incorporating the use of static progressive orthoses for the upper extremity was conducted, dating from January 1979 through January of 2011. The search was limited to studies in English of adults with orthopedic conditions. Results A total of 65 publications were located. However, only 16 of these studies met this review's inclusion criteria of level 4 evidence or above. Each of the articles was critically appraised using the Structured Effectiveness for Quality Evaluation of Study (SEQES) and the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine 2011 Level of Evidence. Total SEQES scores ranged from 17 to 39. The majority of the studies are level 4 evidence. Conclusions Although the overall level of evidence is low, the inclusion of static progressive orthoses as an intervention appears to result in positive outcomes, including increased active range of motion, increased grip strength, improved DASH scores, and improved patient satisfaction as well as reduced pain medications during orthotic intervention. The current evidence supports static progressive orthoses as an intervention for patients with upper extremity joint stiffness or contractures due to orthopedic conditions.

show abstract

Optimal daily total end range time for contracture:

Cited by 99 publications

References 21 publications

Vocal Fold Wound Healing: A Review for Clinicians

Vocal Fold Wound Healing: A Review for Clinicians

Validity of Goniometric Elbow Measurements: Comparative Study with a Radiographic Method

Static Progressive Orthoses for the Upper Extremity: A Comprehensive Literature Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About