Background and Purpose-In the Western world, the Bobath Concept or neurodevelopmental treatment is the most popular treatment approach used in stroke rehabilitation, yet the superiority of the Bobath Concept as the optimal type of treatment has not been established. This systematic review of randomized, controlled trials aimed to evaluate the available evidence for the effectiveness of the Bobath Concept in stroke rehabilitation. Method-A systematic literature search was conducted in the bibliographic databases MEDLINE and CENTRAL (March 2008) and by screening the references of selected publications (including reviews). Studies in which the effects of the Bobath Concept were investigated were classified into the following domains: sensorimotor control of upper and lower limb; sitting and standing, balance control, and dexterity; mobility; activities of daily living; health-related quality of life; and cost-effectiveness. Due to methodological heterogeneity within the selected studies, statistical pooling was not considered. Two independent researchers rated all retrieved literature according to the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale from which a best evidence synthesis was derived to determine the strength of the evidence for both effectiveness of the Bobath Concept and for its superiority over other approaches. Results-The search strategy initially identified 2263 studies. After selection based on predetermined criteria, finally, 16 studies involving 813 patients with stroke were included for further analysis. There was no evidence of superiority of Bobath on sensorimotor control of upper and lower limb, dexterity, mobility, activities of daily living, health-related quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Only limited evidence was found for balance control in favor of Bobath. Because of the limited evidence available, no best evidence synthesis was applied for the health-related quality-of-life domain and cost-effectiveness. Conclusions-This systematic review confirms that overall the Bobath Concept is not superior to other approaches. Based on best evidence synthesis, no evidence is available for the superiority of any approach. This review has highlighted many methodological shortcomings in the studies reviewed; further high-quality trials need to be published. Evidence-based guidelines rather than therapist preference should serve as a framework from which therapists should derive the most effective treatment. (Stroke. 2009;40:e89-e97.)

New insights into the phenotype of Joint Hypermobility Syndrome (JHS) and Ehlers‐Danlos Syndrome‐hypermobile type (hEDS) have raised many issues in relation to classification, diagnosis, assessment, and treatment. Within the multidisciplinary team, physical therapy plays a central role in management of individuals with hypermobility related disorders. However, many physical therapists are not familiar with the diagnostic criteria, prevalence, common clinical presentation, and management. This guideline aims to provide practitioners with the state of the art regarding the assessment and management of children, adolescents, and adults with JHS/hEDS. Due to the complexity of the symptoms in the profile of JHS/hEDS, the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) is adopted as a central framework whereby the umbrella term of disability is used to encompass functions, activities and participation, as well as environmental and personal factors. The current evidence‐based literature regarding the management of JHS/hEDS is limited in size and quality and there is insufficient research exploring the clinical outcomes of a number of interventions. Multicenter randomized controlled trials are warranted to assess the clinical and cost‐effectiveness of interventions for children and adults. Until further multicenter trials are conducted, clinical decision‐making should be based on theoretical and the current limited research evidence. For all individuals diagnosed with JHS/hEDS, international consensus and combined efforts to identify risk profiles would create a better understanding of the pathological mechanisms and the potential for optimizing health care for affected individuals. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Introduction. To provide a state of the art on diagnostics, clinical characteristics, and treatment of paediatric generalised joint hypermobility (GJH) and joint hypermobility syndrome (JHS). Method. A narrative review was performed regarding diagnostics and clinical characteristics. Effectiveness of treatment was evaluated by systematic review. Searches of Medline and Central were performed and included nonsymptomatic and symptomatic forms of GJH (JHS, collagen diseases). Results. In the last decade, scientific research has accumulated on all domains of the ICF. GJH/JHS can be considered as a clinical entity, which can have serious effects during all stages of life. However research regarding the pathological mechanism has resulted in new potential opportunities for treatment. When regarding the effectiveness of current treatments, the search identified 1318 studies, from which three were included (JHS: n = 2, Osteogenesis Imperfecta: n = 1). According to the best evidence synthesis, there was strong evidence that enhancing physical fitness is an effective treatment for children with JHS. However this was based on only two studies. Conclusion. Based on the sparsely available knowledge on intervention studies, future longitudinal studies should focus on the effect of physical activity, fitness, and joint stabilisation. In JHS and chronic pain, the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary approach should be investigated.

No abstract

Dancers with GJH seem more vulnerable to musculoskeletal and psychological complaints. In addition, GJH was also associated with lower physical fitness, despite training. Caregivers for professional dancers should monitor closely the physical capabilities and the amount of psychological strain.

Generalized joint hypermobility (GJH) is highly prevalent among patients diagnosed with chronic pain. When GJH is accompanied by pain in $4 joints over a period $3 months in the absence of other conditions that cause chronic pain, the hypermobility syndrome (HMS) may be diagnosed. In addition, GJH is also a clinical sign that is frequently present in hereditary diseases of the connective tissue, such as the Marfan syndrome, osteogenesis imperfecta, and the Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. However, within the Ehlers-Danlos spectrum, a similar subcategory of patients having similar clinical features as HMS but lacking a specific genetic profile was identified: Ehlers-Danlos syndrome hypermobility type (EDS-HT). Researchers and clinicians have struggled for decades with the highly diverse clinical presentation within the HMS and EDS-HT phenotypes (Challenge 1) and the lack of understanding of the pathological mechanisms that underlie the development of pain and its persistence (Challenge 2). In addition, within the HMS/EDS-HT phenotype, there is a high prevalence of psychosocial factors, which again presents a difficult issue that needs to be addressed (Challenge 3). Despite recent scientific advances, many obstacles for clinical care and research still remain. To gain further insight into the phenotype of HMS/EDS-HT and its mechanisms, clearer descriptions of these populations should be made available. Future research and clinical care should revise and create consensus on the diagnostic criteria for HMS/EDS-HT (Solution 1), account for clinical heterogeneity by the classification of subtypes within the HMS/EDS-HT spectrum (Solution 2), and create a clinical core set (Solution 3).

Children diagnosed with JHS/EDS-HT who have a high incidence of multi-systemic complaints (particularly, orthostatic intolerance, urinary incontinence and diarrhoea) and poor postural control in addition to high levels of pain and fatigue at baseline are most likely to have a deteriorating trajectory of functional impairment and, accordingly, warrant clinical prioritization.

Chronic widespread pain is highly present in patients with the Ehlers-Danlos syndrome hypermobility type (EDS-HT), but up to now, evidence for generalized hyperalgesia is lacking. The aim of this study is to investigate whether pressure pain thresholds (PPTs) at both symptomatic and asymptomatic body areas differ in EDS-HT patients compared to healthy subjects. Twenty-three women with EDS-HT and 23 gender- and age-matched healthy controls participated. All subjects marked on Margolis Pain Diagram where they felt pain lasting longer than 24 h in the past 4 weeks. Then, they completed several questionnaires assessing pain cognitions, fatigue, disability, and general health status, in order to take the possible influence of these factors on PPTs into account. Patients also completed a form concerning the type of pain they experienced. Thereupon, a blinded researcher assessed PPTs at 14 body locations on the trunk and extremities. PPTs were compared for the two complete groups. In addition, PPTs of patients and controls who did not report pain in a respective zone were compared. PPTs of the patients were significantly lower compared to those of the control group, also when pain-free samples per zone were compared. The mean (SD) PPT was 2.9 (1.62) kg/cm(2) in the EDS-HT patients and 5.2 (1.88) kg/cm(2) in the controls (P < 0.001). No confounding factors responsible for the observed differences could be revealed. In half of the patient group, a predominantly neuropathic pain component was likely present. This study provides evidence for the existence of hyperalgesia even in asymptomatic areas (generalized secondary hyperalgesia). The generalized hyperalgesia may represent the involvement of a sensitized central nervous system, which inquires an adapted pain management for this patient group.