Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 4, 2026
Vision Training Methods for Sports Concussion Mitigation and Management
Published on: May 5, 2015
Utilization of Interval Throwing Programs: Analysis of Athletic Trainer, Physical Therapist, and Physician
Aaron Sciascia1, W Jeffrey Grantham2, Austin Stone3
1Institute for Clinical Outcomes and Research, Lexington Clinic, Lexington, KY, USA.
Context:
A common component within rehabilitation recommendations for baseball pitchers is employment of an interval throwing program. However, there is a lack of a consistent set of advocated guidelines for program content and implementation for athletes at the professional and collegiate levels.
Design:
Cross-sectional study.
Methods:
A survey was developed to obtain clinician views regarding the composition and implementation of interval throwing programs for baseball pitchers. The survey was divided into demographic information and sections on criteria to begin throwing programs, frequency of throwing, soreness management, warm-up components, program components and regulation of a program, and criteria to achieve permitting live throwing. Clinicians including physicians, physical therapists, and certified athletic trainers who evaluate and treat musculoskeletal injuries among baseball pitchers at the professional-level and/or collegiate-level clinician received the survey. Responses were tabulated and compared between the professional-level clinician and collegiate-level clinician groups using chi-square analyses with statistical significance set at P ≤ .05.
Results:
The survey was completed by 166 clinicians (collegiate level = 81, professional-level clinician = 85). There were no statistical differences between groups for allowing warm-up throws, program regulation, maximum distance allowed, managing soreness, or criteria to achieve before permitting live throwing. Between-group differences included criteria to begin a program (≤.03), warm-up distance (P ≤ .02), nonthrowing warm-up methods (P ≤ .04), non-warm-up distance (P ≤ .01), using ratings of perceived exertion (P < .01), throwing frequency (P < .01), and program components (P ≤ .04).
Conclusions:
Responses appear to mirror interval throwing program designs previously reported in the literature but there are modifications and additions utilized by clinicians at different playing levels.
