Article: The efficacy of wearable activity tracking technology as part of a weight loss program: a systematic review - The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2018 April;58(4):534-48 - Minerva Medica - Journals

Background: Roller massage (RM) has become a common intervention among health and fitness professionals. Recently, manufacturers have merged the science of vibration therapy and RM with the development of vibration rollers. Of interest, is the therapeutic effects of such RM devices. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of a vibration roller and nonvibration roller intervention on prone knee-flexion passive range of motion (ROM) and pressure pain threshold (PPT) of the quadriceps musculature. Methods: Forty-five recreationally active adults were randomly allocated to one of 3 groups: vibration roller, nonvibration roller, and control. Each roller intervention lasted a total of 2 minutes. The control group did not roll. Dependent variables included prone knee-flexion ROM and PPT measures. Statistical analysis included parametric and nonparametric tests to measure changes among groups. Results: The vibration roller demonstrated the greatest increase in PPT (180 kPa, P < .001), followed by the nonvibration roller (112 kPa, P < .001) and control (61 kPa, P < .001). For knee flexion ROM, the vibration roller demonstrated the greatest increase in ROM (7°, P < .001), followed by the nonvibration roller (5°, P < .001) and control (2°, P < .001). Between groups, there was a significant difference in PPT between the vibration and nonvibration roller (P = .03) and vibration roller and control (P < .001). There was also a significant difference between the nonvibration roller and control (P < .001). For knee ROM, there was no significant difference between the vibration and nonvibration roller (P = .31). A significant difference was found between the vibration roller and control group (P < .001) and nonvibration roller and control group (P < .001). Conclusion: The results suggest that a vibration roller may increase an individual’s tolerance to pain greater than a nonvibration roller. This investigation should be considered a starting point for future research on this technology.

Instrument assisted soft-tissue mobilization (IASTM) has become a popular myofascial intervention for sports medicine professionals. Despite the widespread use and emerging research, a consensus on clinical standards, such as a describing the intervention, indications, precautions, contraindications, tool hygiene, safe treatment, and assessment, does not exist. There is a need to develop best practice standards for IASTM through a universal consensus on these variables. The purpose of this commentary is to discuss proposed clinical standards and to encourage other sports medicine professionals and researchers to contribute their expertise to the development of such guidelines. 5.

Background: Mechanical percussion devices have become popular among sports medicine professionals. These devices provide a similar effect as manual percussion or tapotement used in therapeutic massage. To date, there are few published studies or evidence-based guidelines for these devices. There is a need to understand what professionals believe about this technology and how they use these devices in clinical practice. Purpose: To survey and document the knowledge, clinical application methods, and use of mechanical percussion devices among healthcare professionals in the United States. Design: Cross-sectional survey study. Methods: A 25 question online survey was emailed to members of the National Athletic Trainers Association, Academy of Orthopedic Physical Therapy, and American Academy of Sports Physical Therapy. Results: Four hundred twenty-five professionals completed the survey. Most professionals (92%, n=391) used devices from two manufacturers: Hyperice® and Theragun®. Seventy-seven percent directed clients to manufacturer and generic websites (n=329) to purchase devices. Most respondents used a medium and low device speed setting for pre- and post-exercise (62%, n=185), pain modulation (59%, n=253), and myofascial mobility (52%, n=222). A large proportion of respondents preferred a total treatment time between 30 seconds and three minutes (36-48%, n=153-204) or three to five minutes (18-22%, n=76-93). Most respondents (54-69%, n=229-293) believed that mechanical percussion increases local blood flow, modulates pain, enhances myofascial mobility, and reduces myofascial restrictions. Most respondents (72%, n=305) were influenced by other colleagues to use these devices. Sixty-six percent used patient reported outcomes (n=280) to document treatment efficacy. Live instruction was the most common mode of education (79%, n=334). Conclusion: These results are a starting point for future research and provide insight into how professionals use mechanical percussion devices. This survey also highlights the existing gap between research and practice. Future research should examine the efficacy of this technology and determine consensus-based guidelines. Level of Evidence: 3