Background: Musculoskeletal pain is a non-negligible multifaceted condition affecting more than 30% of the global population. Superficial heat therapy (HT) through increasing tissues temperatures plays a role in increasing local metabolism and function and relieving pain. Knee pain and sports represent two relevant fields of superficial HT application. Methods: In the present paper a panel of experts performed a narrative review of the literature regarding the role of superficial HT in the management of knee pain and sport activities. Results: According to the reviewed literature, HT represents a therapeutic option in the management of musculoskeletal pain due to three main effects: pain relief, promotion of healing and return to normal function and activity. Moreover, HT plays a role in sport activities both before and after exercise. Before performing sports, HT helps in preparing muscles for performance. After performing sports, it is capable to promote recovery and healing pathways. Combining and sequencing superficial heat and cold therapy represent an interesting topic of study. Overall, application of heat wraps for superficial HT can be considered safe. Conclusions: Despite being an ancient method, HT shows to be a potentially beneficial and safe option in the management of several conditions including KP and sports. The key in the application of superficial HT is a multimodal and multidisciplinary approach.

(1) Background: The diagnosis of lumbosacral radiculopathy involves anamnesis, assessment of sensitivity and strength, diagnostic imaging—usually magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)—and electrodiagnostic testing (EDX), typically electromyography (EMG) and electroneurography (ENG). MRI evaluates the structures supporting the spinal cord, while EDX evaluates root functionality. The present study aimed to analyze the concordance of MRI and EDX findings in patients with clinically suspected radiculopathy. Additionally, we investigated the comparison between these two reference tests and various clinical variables and questionnaires. (2) Methods: We designed a prospective epidemiological study of consecutive cases with an observational, descriptive, cross-sectional, and double-blind nature following the STROBE guidelines, encompassing 142 patients with clinical suspicion of lumbosacral radiculopathy. (3) Results: Of the sample, 58.5% tested positive for radiculopathy using EDX as the reference test, while 45.8% tested positive using MRI. The comparison between MRI and EDX in the diagnosis of radiculopathy in patients with clinical suspicion was not significant; the overall agreement was 40.8%. Only the years with symptoms were comparatively significant between the positive and negative radiculopathy groups as determined by EDX. (4) Conclusion: The comparison between lumbar radiculopathy diagnoses in patients with clinically suspected pathology using MRI and EDX as diagnostic modalities did not yield statistically significant findings. MRI and EDX are complementary tests assessing different aspects in patients with suspected radiculopathy; degeneration of the structures supporting the spinal cord does not necessarily imply root dysfunction.