1. Outcomes of a Weight-Bearing Rehabilitation Program for Patients Diagnosed With Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome 
Michelle C. Boling, MS, ATC, Lori A. Bolgla, PT, PhD, ATC, Carl G. Mattacola, PhD, ATC, Tim L. Uhl, PT, PhD, ATC, Robert G. Hosey, MD 
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 
Volume 87, Issue 11, Pages (November 2006)
DOI: /j.apmr
Copyright © 2006 The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions

2. Fig 1
The stair platform.
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation  , DOI: ( /j.apmr )
Copyright © 2006 The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions

3. Fig 2 The descent phase of the stair-stepping task.
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation  , DOI: ( /j.apmr )
Copyright © 2006 The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions

4. Fig 3
Mean vastus lateralis (VL) and VMO onset timing difference pretest and posttest for subjects with PFPS and control subjects (CS). Timing differences are significantly different at pretest and are similar at posttest. Positive values indicate VMO activation before vastus lateralis activation. Error bars refer to SDs for the vastus lateralis and VMO onset timing differences in each group during the pretests and posttests. *Significant difference (P<.05) between control group and PFPS group pretest. †Significant difference (P<.05) between PFPS group pretest and posttest.
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation  , DOI: ( /j.apmr )
Copyright © 2006 The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions

5. Fig 4
Mean VAS scores for subjects with PFPS and control subjects. Pain was significantly different between baseline and weeks 4 to 6 for subjects with PFPS. Error bars refer to SDs for the VAS scores in each group over the 6-week intervention. *Significant difference (P<.05) from baseline in the PFPS group.
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation  , DOI: ( /j.apmr )
Copyright © 2006 The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions

6. Fig 5
Mean FIQ scores for subjects with PFPS and control subjects. Function was significantly better from baseline at weeks 2 to 6 for subjects with PFPS. Error bars refer to SDs for the FIQ scores in each group over the 6-week intervention. *Significant difference (P<.05) from baseline in the PFPS group.
Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation  , DOI: ( /j.apmr )
Copyright © 2006 The American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Terms and Conditions