Exploring Force Production Reliability across Different Levels of Clinical Experience during a Simulated One-handed Instrument-Assisted Soft Tissue Mobilization Treatment: A Pilot Study.
Moni Syeda, Jason Bartholomew, Shayane Valenzuela Santiago and 4 others
PMID 36237661WHAT IT FOUND
In 10 trained participants, IASTM force was similar across two lab sessions, but this tested force consistency, not patient pain or function.
Do not assume one instrument or training produces clinically effective force.
Key findings
01Ten trained participants produced average forces between 1.6 and 9.0 newtons during simulated IASTM strokes.
02Across two days, only one force variation value was above 20%, and all ten participants showed agreement between sessions.
03The consistency finding applies only to similarly trained participants using one instrument and one stroke in a simulated setting.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only ten participants were tested, and they were all athletic trainers or athletic training students with similar IASTM training. The study used one instrument and one stroke type, so different tools or strokes may behave differently. Force was measured on a skin simulant, not on patients, so the values may not match treatment of healthy or pathological human tissue. The study did not show that the measured force changes patient outcomes. Table height, treatment goals, and other clinical variables may change force application.
Declared interests
The authors reported no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as evidence that IASTM at 1.6 to 9.0 newtons improves patient outcomes. The study measured force on a skin simulant in ten similarly trained participants and did not assess patient outcomes.