The accuracy of therapeutic ultrasound equipment: a systematic review

References

• Lindsay D, Dearness J, Richardson C, Chapman A, Cuskelly G. A survey of electromodality usage in private physiotherapy practices. Aust J Physiother 1990;36:249–56
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Robertson V, Spurritt D. Electrophysical agents: implications of their availability and use in undergraduate clinical placements. Aust J Physiother 1998;84:335–44
   Google Scholar
• Chipchase LS, Trinkle D. Therapeutic ultrasound: clinicians usage and perception of efficacy. Hong Kong J Physiother 2003;21:5–13
   Google Scholar
• Rivest M, Quirion-de Girardi C, Seaborne D, Lambert J. Evaluation of therapeutic ultrasound devices: performance stability over 44 weeks of clinical use. Physiother Can 1987;39:77–86
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Australian and New Zealand Standards. Guide to testing and calibration of ultrasound therapy machines. Sydney: Standards Australia and Standards New Zealand, 2005
   Google Scholar
• Pye SD, Milford C. The performance of ultrasound physiotherapy machines in Lothian Region, Scotland, 1992. Ultrasound Med Biol 1994;20:347–59
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kollmann C, Vacariu G, Schuhfried O, Fialka-Moser V, Bergmann H. Variations in the Output Power and Surface Heating Effects of Transducers in Therapeutic Ultrasound. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005;86:1318–24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pye S, Zeqiri B. Guidelines for testing and calibration of physiotherapy machines. Report No. 84. York: Institution of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, 2001
   Google Scholar
• Robertson V, Ward A, Low J, Reed A. Electrotherapy Explained: Principals and Practice 4th ed. Sydney: Butterworth-Heinemann Elsevier, 2006
   Google Scholar
• Stewart HF, Harris GR, Robinson RA, Garry J. Survey of use and performance of ultrasonic therapy units in the Washington DC area. Puerto Rico: Rockville Md. US Government Printing Office Washington; 1973
   Google Scholar
• Sheffield University. Systematic reviews: what are they and why are they useful? UK: Sheffield University, 2007. http://www.shef.ac.uk/scharr/ir/units/systrev/hierarchy.htm (accessed 4th Oct 2008)
   Google Scholar
• Law M, Stewart D, Pollock N, Letts L, Bosch J, Westmorland M. Critical review form-quantitative studies. Canada: McMasters University Occupational Therapy Evidence-Based Practice Research Group, 1998
   Google Scholar
• Lekkas P, Larsen T, Kumar S, Grimmer K, Nyland L, Chipchase L, et al. No model of clinical education for physiotherapy students is superior to another: a systematic review. Aust J Physiother 2007;53:19–28
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schabrun S, Chipchase L. Healthcare equipment as a source of nosocomial infection: a systematic review. J Hosp Infect 2006;63:239–45
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barras C. A systematic and critical review of the literature: the effectiveness of occupational therapy home assessment on a range of outcome measures. Aust Occup Ther J 2005;52:326–36
   Google Scholar
• Allen KG, Battye CK. Performance of ultrasonic therapy instruments. Physiotherapy 1978;64:174–79
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stewart HF, Harris GR, Herman BA, Robinson RA, Haran ME, McCall GR, et al. Survey of use and performance of ultrasonic therapy equipment in Pinellas County, Florida. Phys Ther 1974;54:707–15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fyfe MC, Parnell SM. The importance of measurement of effective transducers radiating area in the testing and calibration of ‘therapeutic’ ultrasonic instruments. Health Phys 1982;43: 377–81
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson SM, Fyfe MC. A survey of output characteristics of some new therapeutic ultrasound instruments manufactured in Australia. Aust J Physiother 1983;29:10–13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lloyd J, Evans J. A Calibration survey of physiotherapy ultrasound equipment in North Wales. Physiotherapy 1988;74:56–61
   Google Scholar
• Chapman RH. A survey of output calibrations of ultrasound therapy equipment used in physiotherapy practice. NZ J Physiother 1986;14:13–14
   Google Scholar
• Guirro R, Serrao F, Elias D, Bucalon A. Calibration of therapeutic ultrasound equipment. Physiotherapy 1997;83:419–22
   Google Scholar
• Artho PA, Thyne JG, Warring BP, Willis CD, Brismee JM, Latman NS. A calibration study of therapeutic ultrasound units. Phys Ther 2002;82:257–63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniel DM, Rupert RL. Calibration and electrical safety status of therapeutic ultrasound used by chiropractic physicians. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2003;26:171–5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross RN, Sourkes AM, Sandeman JM. Survey of ultrasound therapy devices in Manitoba. Health Phys 1984;47:595–601
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pye S. Ultrasound therapy equipment-does it perform? Physiother 1996;82:39–44
   Google Scholar
• Kitchen S. Electrotherapy: Evidence Based Practice. Oxford: Harcourt Publishers Limited, 2002
   Google Scholar
• Glendhill M. Survey of physiotherapy ultrasound equipment calibrations. New Zealand: National Radiation Laboratory Ministry of Health, 1996
   Google Scholar
• Snow CJ. Ultrasound therapy units in Manitoba and Northwestern Ontario: performance evaluation. Physiother Can 1982;34:185–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Robertson V. Dosage and treatment response in randomised clinical trials of therapeutic ultrasound. Physical Therapy in Sport 2002;3:124–33
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cunningham SJ. Calibration chaos makes research irrelevant. Physiother 1997;83:440–41
   Google Scholar
• Robertson VJ, Baker KG. A review of physiotherapeutic ultrasound: effectiveness studies. Phys Ther 2001;81:1339–50
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guirro R, Britshcy Dos Santos SC. Evaluation of the acoustic intensity of new ultrasound therapy equipment. Ultrasonics 2002;39:553–7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barton S. Which clinical studies provide the best evidence? The best RCT still trumps the best observational study. BMJ 2000;321:256
   Google Scholar
• Benson K, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized controlled trials. N Eng J Med 2000;342:1878–86
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomised, controlled trials, observational studies and the hierarchy of research designs. N Eng J Med 2000;342:1887–97
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Concato J. Observational versus experimental studies: what’s the evidence for a hierarchy? J Am Soc Exper Neuro Ther 2004;1:341–7
   Google Scholar
• Mann CJ. Observational research methods. Research design II: cohort, cross sectional, and case-control studies. Emerg Med J 2003;20:54–60
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peat JK, Mellis C, William K, Xuan W. Health science research: a handbook of quantitative methods. Australia: Allen and Unwin, 2001
   Google Scholar
• Repacholi MH, Benwell DA. Using surveys if ultrasound therapy devices to draft performance standards. Health Phys 1979;36:679–86
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hekkenberg RT, Oosterbaan WA, van Beekum WT. Evaluation of ultrasound therapy devices. Physiother 1986;72:390–5
   Google Scholar