21 research outputs found
Symptomatic asymmetry in the first six months of life: differential diagnosis
Asymmetry in infancy is a clinical condition with a wide variation in appearances (shape, posture, and movement), etiology, localization, and severity. The prevalence of an asymmetric positional preference is 12% of all newborns during the first six months of life. The asymmetry is either idiopathic or symptomatic. Pediatricians and physiotherapists have to distinguish symptomatic asymmetry (SA) from idiopathic asymmetry (IA) when examining young infants with a positional preference to determine the prognosis and the intervention strategy. The majority of cases will be idiopathic, but the initial presentation of a positional preference might be a symptom of a more serious underlying disorder. The purpose of this review is to synthesize the current information on the incidence of SA, as well as the possible causes and the accompanying signs that differentiate SA from IA. This review presents an overview of the nine most prevalent disorders in infants in their first six months of life leading to SA. We have discovered that the literature does not provide a comprehensive analysis of the incidence, characteristics, signs, and symptoms of SA. Knowledge of the presented clues is important in the clinical decision making with regard to young infants with asymmetry. We recommend to design a valid and useful screening instrument
Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The purpose of this report is to provide a succinct but comprehensive summary of the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of manual treatment for the management of a variety of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The conclusions are based on the results of systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), widely accepted and primarily UK and United States evidence-based clinical guidelines, plus the results of all RCTs not yet included in the first three categories. The strength/quality of the evidence regarding effectiveness was based on an adapted version of the grading system developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force and a study risk of bias assessment tool for the recent RCTs.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>By September 2009, 26 categories of conditions were located containing RCT evidence for the use of manual therapy: 13 musculoskeletal conditions, four types of chronic headache and nine non-musculoskeletal conditions. We identified 49 recent relevant systematic reviews and 16 evidence-based clinical guidelines plus an additional 46 RCTs not yet included in systematic reviews and guidelines.</p> <p>Additionally, brief references are made to other effective non-pharmacological, non-invasive physical treatments.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Spinal manipulation/mobilization is effective in adults for: acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain; migraine and cervicogenic headache; cervicogenic dizziness; manipulation/mobilization is effective for several extremity joint conditions; and thoracic manipulation/mobilization is effective for acute/subacute neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for cervical manipulation/mobilization alone for neck pain of any duration, and for manipulation/mobilization for mid back pain, sciatica, tension-type headache, coccydynia, temporomandibular joint disorders, fibromyalgia, premenstrual syndrome, and pneumonia in older adults. Spinal manipulation is not effective for asthma and dysmenorrhea when compared to sham manipulation, or for Stage 1 hypertension when added to an antihypertensive diet. In children, the evidence is inconclusive regarding the effectiveness for otitis media and enuresis, and it is not effective for infantile colic and asthma when compared to sham manipulation.</p> <p>Massage is effective in adults for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for knee osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, myofascial pain syndrome, migraine headache, and premenstrual syndrome. In children, the evidence is inconclusive for asthma and infantile colic.</p