Retraction: a descriptive study of a manual therapy intervention within a randomised controlled trial for hamstring and lower limb injury prevention

Throwing performance after high-velocity low-amplitude thrust manipulation at the cervicothoracic and thoracolumbar junction in elite female water polo players: a randomized blind cross-over study

BACKGROUND

The effect of high-velocity low-amplitude (HVLA) thrust manipulation at the cervicothoracic and thoracolumbar junction in healthy elite female water polo players on throwing performance is unknown.

METHODS

Ten healthy members of the Dutch National female water polo team participated in this randomized blind cross-over study. All received a HVLA manipulation and a sham manipulation at the cervicothoracic and thoracolumbar junction. Hereafter maximum throwing speed, range of motion and isometric strength were measured at 1 hour, 48 hours and 4 weeks follow-up.

RESULTS

No significant differences in maximum throwing speed was found between HVLA and sham manipulation. In the non-dominant shoulder external rotation increased significantly (5.3±6.7°) 48 hours after sham manipulation, this effect was not considered clinically significant and diminished after four weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that HVLA and sham manipulation had no effect on shot velocity or shoulder mobility and the same effect on shoulder strength in healthy elite female water polo players. The common use of cervicothoracic and thoracolumbar HVLA manipulation for improving performance in this specific group of athletes is therefore questionable.

A systematic review finds underreporting of ethics approval, informed consent, and incentives in clinical trials

OBJECTIVES

In this study, we aim to review researchers' reporting practices of the ethics statement, financial incentives, and local ethical committees' profile in their clinical trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A systematic search was done through top-ranked 50 medical journals (Scimago Ranking) to retrieve 2,000 latest publications. Only primary clinical trials were included with no restriction to language or participants.

RESULTS

Among the 927 included trials, 14 trials (1.5%) did not report an ethical statement and two-third (63%) did not completely report the investigated components (Institutional Review eBoard approval, Helsinki Declaration, and informed consent). Moreover, 21 trials (2.26%) reported motivational incentives with the method and amount of payment for participants. Of them, 15 trials offered monetary incentives to participants in different forms. In the remaining six trials, the incentives were mainly medical benefits. Only one trial reported the profile or quality of local Institutional Review Board.

CONCLUSION

A potential gap in the reporting practices of ethics statement and financial incentives was addressed in this review. Authors are urged to fully report all ethical components related to their study, including incentives and compensations plan. Medical journals are also recommended to implement further publication requirements concerning ethics reporting.