RehabEdge homepageHost a course at your facilityCEU by topic and providerSearch for CEU by state, topic, format, etc.Comprehensive therapy products and supplies catalogRehabEdge Forum main pageReach thousands of therapists to show off your products and CEUAsk us.  We're here to help.

Thoughts on article discussing standardizing manipulation terminology

 
Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [RehabEdge Forum] >> Manual Therapy >> Thoughts on article discussing standardizing manipulation terminology Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Thoughts on article discussing standardizing manipulati... - March 14, 2008 4:50:50 PM   
jma

 

Posts: 2309
Joined: August 24, 2000
From: NY
Status: offline
Hello,
Was interested to know what others think about an article that was written in the March 2008 JOSPT titled, "A Model for Standardizing Manipulation Terminology in Physcal Therapy Practice". I think it makes sense.
Post #: 1
RE: Thoughts on article discussing standardizing manipu... - March 17, 2008 12:13:56 AM   
kiwi PT


Posts: 60
Joined: December 2, 2007
From: MI, USA (dreaming of New Zealand)
Status: offline
It may make sense, but I don't see it changing anytime soon, people are too entrenched.

Kyle PT

_____________________________

"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."
Mark Twain

(in reply to jma)
Post #: 2
RE: Thoughts on article discussing standardizing manipu... - March 17, 2008 10:37:09 AM   
jma

 

Posts: 2309
Joined: August 24, 2000
From: NY
Status: offline
I agree but they have to start somewhere and I hope this gets the ball rolling.

(in reply to kiwi PT)
Post #: 3
RE: Thoughts on article discussing standardizing manipu... - March 17, 2008 11:23:14 AM   
T_Thom

 

Posts: 59
Joined: December 25, 2007
Status: offline
I completely agree with this standardization.

(in reply to jma)
Post #: 4
RE: Thoughts on article discussing standardizing manipu... - March 29, 2008 3:26:28 PM   
TexasOrtho


Posts: 398
Joined: December 22, 2007
Status: online
I agree.  I've been trying to standardize my techniques.  It's a tough exercise, but I think worth it.

_____________________________

Rod Henderson, PT
Board Certified Orthopedic Specialist (or Super-Freak)
Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist
www.texasorthopedics.blogspot.com

(in reply to T_Thom)
Post #: 5
RE: Thoughts on article discussing standardizing manipu... - March 29, 2008 6:06:20 PM   
jma

 

Posts: 2309
Joined: August 24, 2000
From: NY
Status: offline
I do hope this can be "standardized" within my working career.

(in reply to TexasOrtho)
Post #: 6
RE: Thoughts on article discussing standardizing manipu... - March 29, 2008 6:20:34 PM   
steve

 

Posts: 451
Joined: May 14, 2003
From: victoria, bc Canada
Status: online
The idea behind standardization is very interesting to me - we all use some form of manual therapy and really have only a slight idea on why it is effective. Unfortunately "When the cause is unknown the cure is many" and as such a number of philosiphies guide why and how the manual treatment should be delivered - with most of the theories being far from accurate based on our present scientific knowledge. On this basis, I would suggest the standardization is an opportunity to shed ourselves of these theories until a full understanding of the mechanism of their effectiveness is known.

Steve

(in reply to jma)
Post #: 7
RE: Thoughts on article discussing standardizing manipu... - August 7, 2008 8:08:33 AM   
torques

 

Posts: 13
Joined: July 18, 2008
From: Marion, IN
Status: offline
Hi all,
I am all for standardization of Manipulation especially in spinal joint manip. I am actually using it now in the clinic. I still am unsure about a few components:1. what is considered low versus medium velocity in terms of speed or is it just high velocity or low velocity? 2. Other than the direction of force, it lack specific technique identification-graded oscillation, progressive oscillation, sustained stretch et al. 3. identification of mobilizing and stabilizing segments. Reliability of identification of specific spinal segment hypomobility is low. In practice, I still am not confident whether I am actually on L2L3 versus L3L4. How do you generalized the spinal segments. Is there a consensus as to what is considered upper, mid and lower segments would be? (e.g. I consider T1-T3 as upper thoracic, 4-9 mid thoracic, 9-12-low thoracic , L1-L3 mid lumbar, L4L5-low lumbar, C0-C2 subcranial, C2-C7- mid cervical). Lastly, how do you describe position: how specific should you be? should you have to include specific locking position? Hope to hear any thoughts on this

Julius Quezon PT MTC Cped

(in reply to steve)
Post #: 8
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [RehabEdge Forum] >> Manual Therapy >> Thoughts on article discussing standardizing manipulation terminology Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts



Google Custom Search
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode

0.109