Reviews 1323 surprising inclusions.Several drawings are in- accurate, and too small and fussy.Greater integration in the text would have avoided omissions of clinically important biomechanical studies of the trunk, as yet undescribed in any textbook.Salutary criticism from nonspecialists makes for brevity and clarity, but pruning is for experts.Collaboration of both throughout the next edition would make for better balance and an even more coherent synthesis.Good plates, type, paper and binding make for easy reading.The index is useful.The addition of more references to original papers and brief reviews would encourage students to explore the literature.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
A 1988 study studied this question.