PTCase ReportJournal of physical therapy science2018

Total assessment-reassessment & evaluation using bioKinesiologic (TAREK) approach: case presentation for theoretical formulation.

Tarek Mohamed El-Gohary, Hatem A Emara, Mohamed F Awadallah

PMID 29581667

WHAT IT FOUND

A 20-year-old man with chronic low back and leg pain after a car accident reported feeling better and less post-exercise soreness when exercises were tailored using a detailed TAREK assessment.

This is a single case, not proof it works.

Key findings

01A 20-year-old right hand dominant male college student had lower back, groin and leg pain 1 year after a major car accident.

02After TAREK assessment, the evaluator reported a fuller description of pain and functional limitations than the initial medical report.

03The patient reported feeling better and less post-exercise soreness and pain when a therapeutic ball was used instead of floor back-extension exercises.

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.

Already have one?

What it does not show

Only one patient was described. The paper is framed as a case presentation for theoretical formulation, not a tested intervention study. No comparison group, blinded outcome assessment, or objective outcome measure is reported. The patient's feeling better and less post-exercise soreness was subjective and not quantified. The patient had previously received modalities, general exercises, pain medications and muscle relaxants, so the effect of any single later component cannot be separated. The evaluator was an expert in the approach being presented, which may affect assessment and interpretation.

Declared interests

The authors declared no conflict of interest. No funding source is reported.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read this as evidence that TAREK or therapeutic ball exercises work. The improvement was reported by a single patient, there was no comparison group, no objective outcome measure, and the evaluator was presenting a newly created approach.

Read it on PubMed →