Therapeutic ultrasound has been studied for over seven decades for different medical applications. The versatility of ultrasound applications are highly dependent on the frequency, intensity, duration, duty cycle, power, wavelength, and form. In this review article, we will focus on low-intensity continuous ultrasound (LICUS). LICUS has been well-studied for numerous clinical disorders, including tissue regeneration, pain management, neuromodulation, thrombosis, and cancer treatment. PubMed and Google Scholar databases were used to conduct a comprehensive review of all research studying the application of LICUS in pre-clinical and clinical studies. The review includes articles that specify intensity and duty cycle (continuous). Any studies that did not identify these parameters or used high-intensity and pulsed ultrasound were not included in the review. The literature review shows the vast implication of LICUS in many medical fields at the pre-clinical and clinical levels. Its applications depend on variables such as frequency, intensity, duration, and type of medical disorder. Overall, these studies show that LICUS has significant promise, but conflicting data remain regarding the parameters used, and further studies are required to fully realize the potential benefits of LICUS.

Manual assessment of muscular function, in particular a method known as applied kinesiology (AK), is a clinical measure of neurologic function. A review of the literature reveals methodological problems with previous studies of AK as a form of neurologic assessment. Research designs that do not reflect clinical practice and principles of AK are common in the literature. Additional study is warranted to explore the potential of AK manual muscle testing as a diagnostic tool. We outline principles of AK and recommend that future research reflect more accurately the clinical practice of functional neurologic assessment and applied kinesiology.

No abstract

Context Despite the documented effectiveness of high-velocity, low-amplitude (HVLA) treatment of the cervical spine, concerns about patient safety potentially limit didactic instruction and use in clinical practice. Understanding how cervical HVLA is taught and employed is of interest to osteopathic educators and clinicians. Objectives To characterize the perspectives of osteopathic manipulative medicine/osteopathic principles and practices (OMM/OPP) departments within colleges of osteopathic medicine (COMs) in the US regarding patterns of teaching and practice of HVLA treatment of the cervical spine. Methods A questionnaire was distributed on April 11, 2019 in paper format to OMM/OPP department chairs or designated faculty member attendees at the Educational Council on Osteopathic Principles biannual meeting. If the department chair was not available, the survey was provided to the faculty member designated to represent the Chair of the institution at ECOP. All respondents in this category returned the survey in paper before they left the meeting. The OMM/OPP department chairs who did not attend or send representatives to the ECOP meeting were sent the survey by email on April 11, 2019 and given three opportunities over 6 weeks at 2-week intervals to reply to this voluntary online survey. The survey was given or sent to a total of 51 OMM/OPP department chairs or representatives. Six questions elicited demographic information pertaining to status, age, gender, ethnicity, board-certified specialty, and COM affiliation. Nine questions examined perspectives related to the instruction of cervical HVLA manipulation and treatment. Results Of the 51 OMM/OPP department chairs surveyed, 38 (74.5%) responded, 32 to the paper survey at the ECOP meeting and six to the digital survey. Respondents were primarily dual Board-certified in Family Medicine and Neuromuscular Medicine (55.3%). At over 90% (35) of the COMs for which department chairs responded to the survey, cervical HVLA instruction occurs in the curriculum primarily during program years 1 and 2. Instruction in cervical HVLA to the 2nd through 7th cervical vertebral levels occurred in 97% (37), while 11% (4) of the COMs excluded the occipital-atlanto (OA) and atlanto-axial (AA) joints. A high percentage (81.6%; 31) of the OMM/OPP department chairs or representatives reported employing cervical HVLA techniques within their practice. Among the respondents, 40.5% (15) reported that 0–25% of their school’s medical school class could perform cervical HVLA competently upon graduation, whereas 27% (10) said that 51–75% of their class could perform cervical HVLA. Conclusions A majority of COMs provide education in their curricula related to cervical HVLA primarily in the first 2 years of medical education. However, instruction often excludes cervical HVLA to the upper regions of the cervical spine. At COMs where HVLA to the cervical spine is not taught, that decision is because the techniques are thought to be too difficult and the attendant medicolegal risk perceived to be too high. OMM/OPP department chairs expressed confidence in only a small proportion of their graduates having the ability to competently apply HVLA to the cervical spine immediately after completing their predoctoral medical training.