Talk:Rebound Therapy

Peer Review

 
1. Name of Reviewer: Vanessa Rhule
2. Name of Reviewer Credentials (<g class="gr_ gr_136 gr-alert gr_gramm Punctuation multiReplace" id="136" data-gr-id="136">PhD</g>, MPH, etc.): BSc.
3. Title of Reviewer (Professor, Program Director, etc.): Ms.
4. School/Institution/Clinic: Utica College (DPT) and Therapy by Terri
5. May we have your permission to publish your review openly on Physiopedia?: Yes
6. May we have your permission to recognise you in the article as a reviewer?: Yes

Review Questions
1. Date of Review:
March 26, 2015
2. Physiopedia Page Title:
Rebound Therapy

3. In a sentence please outline your general impression of this article.
The article presented a very interesting topic which was well written and details presented well.

4. What are the strengths of this article?
The page had a very extensive list of benefits and contraindications and detailed evidence speaking to the benefits of rebound therapy. I really enjoyed the addition of the video to tie everything together, giving the reader ideas for use in their practice.

5. What areas of this article could be improved?
The history of rebound therapy was well done and had good <g class="gr_ gr_141 gr-alert gr_gramm Punctuation only-ins replaceWithoutSep" id="141" data-gr-id="141">flow</g> but the long paragraphs made it a bit difficult to read. The same was noted with the information under equipment and training requirements.

6. Is the content on the page comprehensive and appropriately structured?
Yes, I think it is very detailed and of good quality information.

7. Is the page written in an appropriate style for practicing clinicians?
Definitely, appropriate terminology is used throughout for the desired audience.

8. Are the key points made on the page referenced correctly?
Yes, for the most part. I suggest adding some referencing to the description of rebound therapy.

9. Are all the appropriate issues and arguments included in the page?
Yes

10. Are any key and recent pieces of research missing from the page?
All were related to the topic and recent.

11. Did you find any errors in the content? (Please review the article for accuracy and correct any factual errors as well as any misleading or inaccurate content. You do not need to correct <g class="gr_ gr_137 gr-alert gr_gramm Grammar multiReplace" id="137" data-gr-id="137">grammatical</g> and spelling errors.)
No

12. Are there any topics that are not included in the article/topic that you would like to see?
Adding conditions that can benefit from this kind of technique should only enhance the presentation of the page.

13. Are there any topics that you feel should be covered in greater or less detail?
All topics were covered in good detail.

14. Did you feel the content was current? If not, how could it be more up-to-date?
Based on the dates of the reference articles, the content was up-to-date.

15. Finally, would you use this article in your teaching or clinical work? Please state the reasons why or why not?
I see myself using this article as a spark to read more on the topic and do some research. However I would use this article in clinical work as I see where it can benefit a wide range of my patients (especially the paediatric population), even though it was stated that evidence is lacking on its benefits.

16. Please record your suggestions to improve the page below:
- References could be added <g class="gr_ gr_120 gr-alert gr_gramm Grammar multiReplace" id="120" data-gr-id="120">in</g> the history of rebound therapy
- Contraindications and benefits could be separate subheadings
- Addition of conditions that may benefit from this kind of therapy

--Vanessa Rhule 04:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)