PTJ
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


PHYS THER
Vol. 86, No. 1, January 2006, pp. 59-62

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Spielholz, N. I
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Spielholz, N. I
Related Collections
Right arrow Wound Care
Right arrow Electrotherapy
Right arrowRelated Article
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Research Reports

Invited Commentary

Neil I Spielholz, PT, PhD, FAPTA

nspielholz@adelphia.net


Because this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the full text and any section headings.


    Introduction
 
I appreciate this opportunity to comment on the article by Godbout and Frenette, with which I have many disagreements. The give-and-take between my thoughts and the rebuttals of the authors should make interesting reading. And disagreement is good because, in the long run, it frequently leads to a better understanding of, or at least a closer approximation to, the truth.

The literature contains conflicting reports about whether fibroblasts on glass slides migrate in a direct current (DC) field or not. Like these authors, previous researchers1 also reported they do not, but other researchers2–5 have reported they do. Workers in this area will have to sort this out. My disagreements with this article are quite different. First, and most importantly, I will address various aspects of the authors’ claim that "The model of wound closure [used in this study] is well accepted to mimic wound healing in vitro." I argue that . . . [Full Text of this Article]


    The Model Is Not One of a Wound or Wound Healing
 

    Contrasting the Authors’ Interpretation of Their Findings of Nonmigration With the Interpretations of Other Authors Who Also Reported Nonmigration
 

    How the Authors Explain the "Weaknesses" of Other Reports That Fibroblasts Do Migrate in an Electrical Field
 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Related Article

In Vitro Model of Cell Migration
Neil I Spielholz
Physical Therapy 2006 86: 762. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by the American Physical Therapy Association.