"Randomized Controlled Trial of Neural Mobilization After Spinal Surgery.
Scrimshaw SV, Maher CG.
School of Physiotherapy, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
CONCLUSIONS: The neural mobilization protocol evaluated in this
study did not provide an additional benefit to standard postoperative care
for patients undergoing spinal surgery. The authors advocate that this
protocol not be used in clinical practice."
**Just interested in this study on neural mobilization. It is a fair
conclusion to make regardint no significant difference between neural
mobilization and normal protocol, but I do not understand the last line "The
authors advocate that this protocol not be used in clinical practice." It
seems that the authors are basing their study and making a bold prediction
about the entire population. No cost studies were done to suggest that maybe
neural mobilisation may be more expensive and hence financially nonviable.
If neural mobilization had been worse off than normal protocol, then perhaps
it may legitimize the author's comments, but this was not stated. This is
quite concerning to me along with many studies that are coming out of the
University of Sydney - they seem to be making bold conclusions about many
things based on negative findings in a single study. What do you think??
Henry***
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
|