Re treating gout
no research project, but if evidence is actually seeing the benefit... I
have treated my husband with ice packs - soothes for a short time; arnica
ointment after the ice lasts a bit longer as an anti-inflammatory; but the
best is ultrasound using the arnica as the contact medium. I have trialled
it with several other patients as well - all with almost instant relief.
This does not replace medications, but, as an adjunct, it does give a great
deal of reduction in pain and consequent improvement in return to full
function. Isn't that what physio is about? Trying things out is how we
discover things. If it doesn't help your patients, the question needs to be
asked "is it the treatment or the method of application, or the person
applying it that is the problem?"
Lynda Bennett
Australia.


>From: "Goh Ah Cheng" <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>To: <[log in to unmask]>, "'Bruce Gray'" <[log in to unmask]>
>CC: <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: EPA and evidence based practice
>Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 20:26:56 +0900
>
>Dear Bruce,
>You certainly seem to be on a crusade, for some reason or other. It seems
>my colleagues on the EPA mail-list feels that your comments should not go
>unchallenged. At the very least, your condescending and inflammatory (no
>pun intended) language deserves some sort of a response.
>Yes, there is a parallel mail-list on mailbase dealing solely with
>electrophysical agents and evidence based practice. Believe it or not,
>there is actually evidence behind those "ping" machines that you've chosen
>to banish to an un-named storeroom in your department. Believe it or not,
>also, most of us on the EPA list aren't "a bunch of conservative old women
>who know no better". But let's not dwell on beliefs alone.... lets look at
>the evidence.
>If you really are interested in "finding truth", perhaps you can spend some
>of the time that you've saved from abandoning a "flawed anachronistic
>paradigm", do a MEDLINE or CINAHL or PEDro search and come back to the
>list
>with something more constructive than "electrotherapy sucks".
>Any self-respecting Physical Therapist in any corner of the world can tell
>you that there are problems with some of the modalities that we use (but
>perhaps not in the language that you've chosen to taunt us with). No one
>can deny that there are many issues that needs further investigation
>regarding its clinical application. Indeed, I can even agree with you that
>some of the modalities currently in use (I won't be so bold as to name
>them)
>should be similarly banished to your un-named storeroom. If you wanted to
>draw attention to any of this, all you had to do was to be a bit more
>specific. But like the Razor (who or what the hell is Occam??!!) that you
>were so willing to brandish, your sweeping generalizations had the reverse
>effect. There is no way anyone can respond to your comments without
>producing a thesis. This, I am sure, would not go down well with the rest
>of the members on PHYSIO or any mailing list. So, instead of giving you
>counter arguments that could confine me to this chair I am sitting on for
>the rest of my life, let me instead direct you to the Electrophysical
>Agents
>Home Page at http://health.shinshu-u.ac.jp/PT/electro/index.htm . You
>won't
>find all the answers there of course (unlike you, no one can claim to have
>all the answers). But at least, you will find some of the evidence for and
>some against the modalities that all of us have taken for granted.
>Finally, may I just add that it is my firm belief that often it is not the
>modality that is ineffective, but the inappropriate and sloppy application
>of the modality that dooms the treatment from the start.
>Best regards,
>Goh Ah Cheng, MAppSc (Sydney), PhD candidate (Curtin)
>Department of Physical Therapy
>School of Allied Medical Sciences
>Shinshu University, JAPAN
>EPA mail-list co-owner
>Webmaster, EPA Home Page
>(http://health.shinshu-u.ac.jp/PT/electro/index.htm)
>Webmaster, EMG Home Page (http://health.shinshu-u.ac.jp/PT/emg/index.htm)
>Webmaster, Singapore Physiotherapy Association Home Page
>(http://www.physiotherapy.org.sg)
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bruce Gray [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: 17 October 2000 09:11
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: RE: evidence based practice...
> >
> >
> > Just to get the thread back on topic, I am the sole OPD physio at a Qld
> > country 90 bed hospital in Australia. I recently put all the machines
>that
> > go "ping" into the back storage room, and there are many other hospital
> > storerooms like this.
> >
> > So to affirm my point, electrotherapy sucks. There is no convincing
> > comparative invivo studies that show it is a better treatment then the
> > intelligent appn of ice/heat, rest/movement, and anti-inflamms. I am
>talking
> > everything from US to SWD to laser. My litmus test for the benefits of
> > electrotherapy is to go and try the putated anti-inflamm properties of
>US
>on
> > an acute gout attack.......any of you out there charging good money to
>treat
> > inflammation with electrotherapy instead of encouraging your patients to
>go
> > and get a script for NSAIDs cannot call yourselves scientifically
>trained.
> >
> > If you think 30 mins of electrotherapy 2x/wk (if you are lucky) can do
> > anything significant to fibroblast or leucocyte function, then you are a
> > captive of the dogma of a conservative bunch of old women who know no
> > better.
> >
> > I urge you all to come join the revolution- throw your placebo "ping"
> > machines away, draw out Occam's Razor and slash the ties that bind you
>to
>a
> > flawed anachronistic paradigm.....choose instead to never compromise on
> > finding truth again......
> >
> >
> >
>

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%