Usage Patterns and Beliefs about Therapeutic Ultrasound by Canadian Physical Therapists: An Exploratory Population-Based Cross-Sectional Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore the frequency and patterns of ultrasound (US) usage among physical therapists, to describe the most common purposes for using therapeutic US, and to investigate beliefs about therapeutic US. METHODS: A survey was sent to 95% of physical therapists licensed to practise in the province of Alberta, Canada. RESULTS: Of 2,269 physical therapists to whom email invitations were sent, 438 (19.3%) provided full responses. RESULTS indicate that US is still frequently incorporated into treatment regimens and is widely believed to be effective; however, the study also found a decrease in US usage over the past 15 years. While physical therapists recognize the lack of evidence for the effectiveness of US, many consider it clinically useful. Physical therapists using US rely largely on their clinical experience when making decisions about its use, but this depends on level of education: clinicians with an MScPT degree tended to base more of their US decisions on research evidence, likely because of the increasing emphasis on research evidence in graduate education. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the questionable effectiveness of therapeutic US, physical therapists still commonly use this treatment modality, largely because of a belief that US is clinically useful. However, US usage has decreased over the past 15 years.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".