PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: The objective of this scoping review is to synthesize and clarify literature on the effectiveness of active and passive range of motion therapy techniques to address range of motion in people with heterotopic ossification (HO), and to provide guidance to therapists in clinical decision-making based on current evidence.
UNASSIGNED: To find articles that included therapeutic interventions to maintain or improve range of motion in people with heterotopic ossification, the authors searched the following databases: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Web of Science, and OTSeeker. To ensure that the search was comprehensive, the authors also searched Burns and Trauma, Burns Journal, Burns Open, and the Journal of Hand Therapy. Searches were limited to peer-reviewed articles published in the English language. No publication date limits were set. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database PEDro scale was utilized to measure the validity of the methodological quality of each article.
UNASSIGNED: Five studies met the inclusion criteria.. Two studies emphasized that passive range of motion was effective in less than 50% of their subjects, while the other three studies utilized active range of motion only, reporting 50% of patients did not require surgery.
UNASSIGNED: There is insufficient evidence to determine effective therapeutic management of HO and the literature that does exist is contradictory and inconclusive. Future research is necessary to determine if any effectiveness of manual therapeutic approaches exists for patients with HO.
UNASSIGNED: To find articles that included therapeutic interventions to maintain or improve range of motion in people with heterotopic ossification, the authors searched the following databases: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Web of Science, and OTSeeker. To ensure that the search was comprehensive, the authors also searched Burns and Trauma, Burns Journal, Burns Open, and the Journal of Hand Therapy. Searches were limited to peer-reviewed articles published in the English language. No publication date limits were set. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database PEDro scale was utilized to measure the validity of the methodological quality of each article.
UNASSIGNED: Five studies met the inclusion criteria.. Two studies emphasized that passive range of motion was effective in less than 50% of their subjects, while the other three studies utilized active range of motion only, reporting 50% of patients did not require surgery.
UNASSIGNED: There is insufficient evidence to determine effective therapeutic management of HO and the literature that does exist is contradictory and inconclusive. Future research is necessary to determine if any effectiveness of manual therapeutic approaches exists for patients with HO.
摘要：
■本范围审查的目的是综合和澄清有关主动和被动运动治疗技术的有效性的文献，以解决异位骨化（HO）患者的运动范围，并根据现有证据为治疗师的临床决策提供指导。
■要找到包括治疗性干预措施的文章，以维持或改善异位骨化患者的运动范围，作者搜索了以下数据库：Cochrane系统评价数据库，PubMed,CINAHL,心理信息,WebofScience,和OTSeeker。为了确保搜索是全面的，作者还搜索了伯恩斯和创伤，伯恩斯杂志,Burns打开,和《手部治疗杂志》。搜索仅限于以英语发表的同行评审文章。没有设置发布日期限制。使用物理治疗证据数据库PEDro量表来衡量每篇文章的方法学质量的有效性。
■五项研究符合纳入标准。.两项研究强调，被动运动范围对不到50％的受试者有效，而其他三项研究只利用了活动范围，报告50%的患者不需要手术.
■没有足够的证据来确定HO的有效治疗管理，并且确实存在的文献相互矛盾且尚无定论。未来的研究是必要的，以确定是否有任何有效的手动治疗方法存在于患者的HO。
■要找到包括治疗性干预措施的文章，以维持或改善异位骨化患者的运动范围，作者搜索了以下数据库：Cochrane系统评价数据库，PubMed,CINAHL,心理信息,WebofScience,和OTSeeker。为了确保搜索是全面的，作者还搜索了伯恩斯和创伤，伯恩斯杂志,Burns打开,和《手部治疗杂志》。搜索仅限于以英语发表的同行评审文章。没有设置发布日期限制。使用物理治疗证据数据库PEDro量表来衡量每篇文章的方法学质量的有效性。
■五项研究符合纳入标准。.两项研究强调，被动运动范围对不到50％的受试者有效，而其他三项研究只利用了活动范围，报告50%的患者不需要手术.
■没有足够的证据来确定HO的有效治疗管理，并且确实存在的文献相互矛盾且尚无定论。未来的研究是必要的，以确定是否有任何有效的手动治疗方法存在于患者的HO。
