Opinion, but no data, in support of Superthumb. (Reply by Maher et al to comment by Molnar P, and Laird R and Kent P, Australian Journal of Physiotherapy 48: ….)

We cannot agree with any of the points Molnar raises. The Superthumb web page explicitly states that the device reduces hand pain and fatigue (Superthumb 2002) so the writer misleads the readers of the Journal by stating that the information provided on Superthumb only refers to thumb pain and does not mention wrist or hand pain. We are disappointed that he has done this

Prescription of activity for low back pain: What works?

This paper provides evidence-based guidelines for the prescription of activity in the management of non-specific low back pain (NSLBP). The 62 clinical trials published between 1966 and 1997, identified by a search of the Medline and Cinahl databases, were reviewed to provide the basis for the guidelines. The available evidence suggests that physiotherapists should advise patients with acute and sub-acute NSLBP to avoid bed rest and to return to normal activity using time rather than pain as the guide to activity resumption. While structured exercise programs have not been shown to provide a benefit for acute NSLBP, there is strong evidence to support their use for patients with sub-acute and chronic NSLBP and in the prevention of NSLBP

Efficacy of “therapist-selected” versus “randomly selected” mobilisation techniques for the treatment of low back pain: A randomised controlled trial

The aim of this study was to establish whether the mobilisation technique selected by the treating physiotherapist is more effective in relieving low back pain than a randomly selected mobilisation technique. Two manipulative physiotherapists and 140 subjects suffering non-specific low back pain participated. Baseline measurements were taken before treatment allocation; the therapist then assessed subjects and nominated the preferred treatment grade, spinal level to be treated and mobilisation technique to be used. The subjects were then randomly allocated to one of two groups. One group received the preferred mobilisation technique as selected by the therapist; the other group received a randomly assigned mobilisation technique. All mobilisation treatments were applied to the nominated spinal level using the nominated treatment grade. Follow-up measures were taken immediately after intervention. Two-way ANOVA was used to analyse the data; the first factor was the treatment group and the second factor was the direction of the patient's most painful movement. The choice of mobilisation treatment had no effect on any outcome measure investigated in this study; however, post hoc tests revealed that mobilisation treatment applied to the lower lumbar levels had a greater analgesic effect than when applied to upper lumbar levels. The results of this study confirm that lumbar mobilisation treatment has an immediate effect in relieving low back pain, however the specific technique used seems unimportant

Archaeological Investigations at the Box Plant Site, Henry County, Virginia

Research Report No. 13, Research Laboratories of Archaeology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Reports in this series discuss the findings of archaeological excavations and research projects undertaken by the RLA between 1984 and present

Archaeological Investigations at the Philpott Site, Henry County, Virginia

Research Report No. 19, Research Laboratories of Archaeology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Reports in this series discuss the findings of archaeological excavations and research projects undertaken by the RLA between 1984 and present

Archaeological Investigations at the Dallas Hylton Site, Henry County, Virginia

Research Report No. 18, Research Laboratories of Archaeology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Reports in this series discuss the findings of archaeological excavations and research projects undertaken by the RLA between 1984 and present

Archaeological Investigations at the Belmont Site, Henry County, Virginia

Research Report No. 15, Research Laboratories of Archaeology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Reports in this series discuss the findings of archaeological excavations and research projects undertaken by the RLA between 1984 and present

Archaeological Investigations at the Gravely Site, Henry County, Virginia

Research Report No. 17, Research Laboratories of Archaeology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Reports in this series discuss the findings of archaeological excavations and research projects undertaken by the RLA between 1984 and present

Archaeological Investigations at the Stockton Site, Henry County, Virginia

Research Report No. 14, Research Laboratories of Archaeology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Reports in this series discuss the findings of archaeological excavations and research projects undertaken by the RLA between 1984 and present