Transversus abdominis: a different view of the elephant

Hodges, Paul (2008) Transversus abdominis: a different view of the elephant. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 42 12: 941-944. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2008.051037


Author Hodges, Paul
Title Transversus abdominis: a different view of the elephant
Journal name British Journal of Sports Medicine   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0306-3674
1473-0480
Publication date 2008-12
Year available 2008
Sub-type Editorial
DOI 10.1136/bjsm.2008.051037
Volume 42
Issue 12
Start page 941
End page 944
Total pages 4
Editor Karim Khan
Place of publication London, United Kingdom
Publisher B M J Group
Language eng
Abstract It is good to see that clinical and research hypotheses are debated in the literature. The purpose of science is to challenge ideas and to consider alternative interpretations of observations. Within this, the place for neurophysiological/biomechanical studies in clinical research is not to predict the potential efficacy of a clinical approach, but to try to understand the mechanisms that underlie it. This is helpful as it provides a means to refine, improve, and direct intervention and provides a platform to develop rationales for intervention, particularly when we are faced with complex patients who do not fit the clinical prediction rule or the narrow criteria adopted for inclusion in clinical trials. If we understand the mechanisms we have a powerful tool to rationalise and test interventions. The developing debate about the role of transversus abdominis is healthy for rational consideration of motor control interventions for back pain. I welcome this opportunity to comment on the opinions and interpretations of Allison et al1 and Cook.2 As indicated by Allison et al in their paper published in JOSPT,3 it is not the data that are questioned; it is the interpretation. It seems that we have a recurrence of the issue of the six blind men and the elephant, where we see the same animal, but from different perspectives, and draw different conclusions. There are a number of assumptions that require consideration to challenge the interpretation of Allison et al1 and the opinion of Cook.2 A key issue is that to conclude that a single observation from a single task refutes the conclusion of a whole range of different methodologies/tasks seems unfounded.
Keyword Transversus Abdominis
Q-Index Code CX
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Editorial
Collection: UQ Centre for Clinical Research Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 19 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 20 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Tue, 03 Nov 2009, 13:07:26 EST by Carmen Buttery on behalf of UQ Centre for Clinical Research