Rege:
Evidence-based "guru's" would appear to be an oxymoron... If you haven't
already, you might want to read some of the literature on EBM/ EBP. EBM/EBP
does not rule out using other methods of research. In fact, one of the basic
tenets of EBM/EBP is that each practitioner should use all the information
available to him/her when deciding how to intervene with a particular
patient. I appreciate your philosophical points but it seems they miss the
mark.
********************************************************************
Douglas M. White, PT, OCS
191 Blue Hills Parkway
Milton, MA 02186
Ph: 617.696.1974
[log in to unmask]
http://DouglasWhite.org
Colleagues,
I think we should look at the evidence; however, we must also look at how
the evidence was collected. Otherwise, we will evidence-base ourselves out
of practice. What the evidence-based "guru's" fail to relaize, and promote,
are the other methodologies available for meaningfull research such as
qualitative research. What they are doing now is basing judgements on
techniques that employ specific criteria that objectify and divide reality
into sections that they can manipulate and control. This simplifies nature
and sees the world only in terms of quantification. This oversimplifies a
very ambiguous world and a human body that we are only beginning to
understand. From my perspective we need to move away from the empirical,
Newtonian-Cartesian concepts of reality that we have been programmed to
adhere too, and utilize and value other research methodologies that may
provide us an answer (not absolute truth). Marcel Proust once said - "Love
those who seek the truth, beware of those who have found it".
Rege
At 07:55 AM 3/28/2002 -0000, you wrote:
> "" and similar requires further research there is an abundance of
>research showing U/S has little beneficial effect. Anecdotally I suspect it
>(U/S) works when we use it for the right injury and the right stage of
>chronicity and get the dosage, frequency, etc all 'correct'; nonetheless
>the current evidence suggests that US has little/zero therapeutic benefit.
>Therefore if we go the EBP route we shouldn't be using it?! dave riddell
>> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Martin Jones [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>Sent: 28 March 2002 07:44
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: SV: Increaseing clinical efficiency
>>
>> Let's not get into the the traditionality game of our profession
>>which, dare I say has been/is fad led, and look more to research
>>which is done by not in-line school of thought researchers (such as
>>Bobath/Maitland folks doing their own research), or by quoting one
>>article as proof of clinical governance for our practice.
>>Martin ----- Original Message ----- From:
>>Jason Steffe To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Wednesday,
>>March 27, 2002 11:25 PM Subject: Re: SV: Increaseing
>> clinical efficiency
>> FYI Maitland has been studied, in a trial
>> performed by Lance Twomey if memory serves, and it did quite
>>well.
>>Jason Steffe, PT, MS, MTC
>>Physiotherapy Associates
>>1901 Phoenix Blvd, Suite 205
>>College Park, GA. 30349
>>Ph: 770-907-1023
>>Fax:770-907-5608 ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Douglas M. White To:
>>[log in to unmask] Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002
>> 6:56 AM Subject: Re: SV: Increaseing
>>clinical efficiency
>>While I am not up on the literature for Bobath and Maitland I
>>would like to
>>comment on US.
>>
>>In keeping with EBP we should look at whether there evidence
>>to support an
>>intervention as well as evidence that does not support its
>>use. The more
>>intervention has been studied the more confidence we can have
>>about our
>>clinical decision making as it pertains to that intervention.
>>
>>US is one intervention that, in my opinion, has been studied
>>sufficiently.
>>With the exception of calcific tendonitis there is no good
>>evidence to
>>support its continued use. Further, the biophysical and
>> physiologic
>>principles of US we all learned in school do not occur.
>>
>>I do not think it is reasonable to use US for any conditions
>>other than
>>calcific tendonitis.
>>
>>*******************************************************
>>Douglas M. White, PT, OCS
>>191 Blue Hills Parkway
>>Milton, MA USA 02186
>>P: 617.696.1974
>>[log in to unmask]
>>http://DouglasWhite.tripod.com
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>""<[log in to unmask]>
>><[log in to unmask]>
>>Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 3:05 AM
>>Subject: Re: [PHYSIO] SV: Increaseing clinical efficiency
>>
>>
>>>"-stop using therapies that are not supported by the
>>literature ie
>>>"
>>>
>>> mmmmmmmm how about stop using Bobath and Maitland too????
>>|
>>
>
>
>
>
> .....................................................................
> BUPA
> the personal health service
> .....................................................................
>
> BUPA House, 15-19 Bloomsbury Way, London, WC1A 2BA
>
> Visit: http://www.bupa.com
> .....................................................................
> Internet communications are not secure and therefore BUPA does
> not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message. Any
> views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do
> not necessarily represent those of BUPA.
> .....................................................................
>
Rege Turocy, DHCE, PT
Assistant Professor
Department of Physical Therapy
Rangos School of Health Sciences
Duquesne University
Pittsburgh, PA 15282
412/396-5545
|