Going on about evidence based PT, belief, etc... Kaushik send me a mail in
which he mentioned Connective Tissue Massage. Who on this mailserver
practices this? The evidence for CTM is thin, but still it's a part of the
(regulalar) Dutch PT-education.
About evidence-based PT.
I think that some part of PT are very suitable for evidence basing (correct
english?:)), and others less or not. A few weeks ago I started as a PT on a
lungtrainingscentre and I discovered that it difficult to find good RCT
about lung-PT that apply for my patients: manual chest percussion for
example... how long, where, with a flat hand or not. And what if the patient
is really fat? Does it help in that case? And what if the PT has small
hands? Etc, etc. Same thing for PEP (positive expiratory pressure): how many
times a day, which patients, how hard should they blow, etc, etc.
In some articles I read: we compared standard lung-PT with bla, bla, bla
without explaining what standard lung-PT is or only WHAT and not how long,
which position, etc.
No, ... for me lung-PT is more empiry-based than evidence-based.
For other parts of PT evidence-basing is easier I guess. Orthopedic problems
without the involvment of inner organs for example. Hundred healty persons
with an ankle sprain. Should be that hard to find out what is best in a good
RCT. Don't you people agree.
Isaac
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|