ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Do Healthcare Professionals Agree with Delphi Expert Recommendations for Instrument Assisted Soft-Tissue Mobilization Precautions and Contraindications? An Exploratory Survey.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInstrument-assisted soft-tissue mobilization (IASTM) is a popular intervention used for myofascial treatment. Healthcare professionals using IASTM must consider precautions and contraindications prior to administering the intervention. A recent international Delphi survey of IASTM experts recommended a list of 39 conditions to be considered as precautions and contraindications. The clinical relevance of these recommendations among healthcare professionals is of interest. The purpose of the survey was to explore healthcare professionals' agreement regarding the IASTM Delphi recommendations for precautions and contraindications.
methodsA 16-question electronic survey was emailed to members of the Academy of Orthopedic Physical Therapy, American Academy of Sports Physical Therapy, National Athletic Trainers Association, and members of private physical therapy and athletic training Facebook
resultsFour hundred and forty-five professionals (men = 52%; women = 46%; other = 2%) (mean age = 49 ± 12.33 years old) completed the survey. Most respondents (mean = 62%) agreed with 12 of 39 recommended conditions across the strength of agreement grade categories. The conditions included five precautions, four contraindications, and three conditions that could be both. Respondents also listed 32 other conditions they felt were relevant. DISCUSSION: These survey results illustrate diversity among professionals' agreement with expert recommendations. This may be explained by variations in clinical practice patterns and gaps in the research on this topic. The IASTM Delphi study's recommended list of precautions and contraindications provides valuable information but is not all-inclusive, as other conditions may exist for different patients. When exploring understudied topics, researchers may want to begin with a Delphi study to establish expert recommendations, followed by an assessment of their clinical relevance through related survey studies of healthcare professionals' agreement on the topic.
conclusionsThis exploratory survey introduced a novel method of assessing the clinical relevance of a Delphi study on IASTM precautions and contraindications among healthcare professionals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.