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.

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). 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. 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 < .001). SF-36 (physical functioning subscale) revealed a statistically significant intergroups difference (P = .02) after treatment. 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. NCT02861638.

Article: A systematic review opens the black box of “usual care” in stroke rehabilitation control groups and finds a black hole - European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2022 May 30 - Minerva Medica - Journals

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to establish the effect of electromagnetic diathermy therapies (e.g., shortwave, microwave, capacitive resistive electric transfer) on pain, function, and quality of life in treating musculoskeletal disorders. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review according to the PRISMA statement and Cochrane Handbook 6.3. The protocol has been registered in PROSPERO: CRD42021239466. The search was conducted in PubMed, PEDro, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and CINAHL. RESULTS: We retrieved 13,323 records; 68 studies were included. Many pathologies were treated with diathermy against placebo, as a standalone intervention or alongside other therapies. Most of the pooled studies did not show significant improvements in the primary outcomes. While the analysis of single studies shows several significant results in favour of diathermy, all comparisons considered had a GRADE quality of evidence between low and very low. CONCLUSIONS: The included studies show controversial results. Most of the pooled studies present very low quality of evidence and no significant results, while single studies have significant results with a slightly higher quality of evidence (low), highlighting a critical lack of evidence in the field. The results did not support the adoption of diathermy in a clinical context, preferring therapies supported by evidence.