I would have to agree.
To think that PT treatments, especially manual techniques, are similar to
prescribing x number of mg of penicillin is not the same type of RCT.
There should be more focus on how we identify the differences in treatment
and patient activity. Because what we do is so dependent on what the
patient does after they leave the clinic it's not accurate to say that the
treatment has or has not been effective without knowing all the details.
Until we can control for those details it will be difficult at best to
examine the effectiveness of our treatments.
Patrick Zerr
www.apluspt.com
The easiest way to prepare for the National PT Exam!
www.summitpt.com
Summit Physical Therapy; Tempe, Arizona
----- Original Message -----
From: "Regis Turocy" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 7:37 AM
Subject: Re: evidence based practice
> Colleagues,
>
> Who decreed that evidence based practice will save the profession. I
> personnally belief, that if EBP is the only criteria we are going to "hang
> our hat on" it will be the DEATH of our profession. There are too many
> unquantifiable factors involved in our various therapeutic approaches and
> the therapist-patient relationship. To use one approach (EBP) as our only
> criteria is extremely short sighted. I think it is just one of the many
> factors that should be included in the equation. As you can probably
> summarize, I am not that anxious to "jump on" the EBP bandwagon. I would
> rather look at the millions of Americans who are "flocking" to alternative
> care clinics, who are getting better, after failing to do so with
> traditional medicine and physical therapy(in spite of EBP) and ask WHY? I,
> like many of you, have a long clinical history and cannot ignore all those
> other factors that have resulted in a very successful therapeutic outcome.
> From my perspective it is time we take the "empirical blinders " off.
Just
> a thought!!
>
> Rege
>
>
> At 10:42 AM 2/5/2003 +0200, you wrote:
> >I think Frank Conijn has made an important suggestion in his message of 3
> >February. Namely: 'We have to work on saving our profession. But we can
only
> >do that with <valid!>, in the absence of validat<ed> arguments'.
> >
> >It is clear that such arguments can only be obtained via due research.
> >However it is my personal impression that current PT researches worldwide
> >are mostly isolated and poorly coordinated (if coordinated at all). As
far
> >as I know, PT investigations have mainly been carried out at medical
> >universities which may have their own local/specific interests, biases,
and
> >priorities, which not always take into account the higher goals of our
> >profession. In addition, it seems that the teaching activity of
university
> >researchers has taken too much their time.
> >
> >In my opinion, we could consider an establishment of a global PT research
> >network dedicated exclusively to searching for those arguments Frank
> >mentioned. Small informal groups of researchers or even separate
individuals
> >(e.g. supported with appropriate grants) could also be included into such
a
> >network. Of course, it would hugely be welcome to coordinate these
> >researchers' investigations conducted in various countries (i.e.
conducted
> >using a multi-central design). I think a possible bureaucratic manner of
> >such coordination will be minimized if we'll find several respectable PT
> >researchers worldwide who will rather be more interested in scientific
> >soundness of our profession than in their remunerations appropriate. I do
> >not know whether the World Confederation for Physical Therapy has its
> >Research Department. If yes, then we surely could use their experience
and
> >potentialities. If no, then we could use their successful experience as
to
> >effective organizing the PT practice and adapt it, to some extent, to
> >coordination of our research efforts worldwide.
> >
> >Money? For the moment, I do not know from where. I am very far from
> >answering this question. Especially when sitting in this 'restructuring'
> >country. Maybe PT equipment companies... Maybe grant-giving organizations
> >(why not The Wellcome Trust, the most serious and powerful biomedical
> >sponsor
> >over the globe?).. Maybe appropriate State Departments charged with
> >improving the quality of health care... Maybe all the listed in
> >conjunction...
> >I hope somebody from my colleagues abroad will be more productive in
> >economic assessing such a project and advising relevant sources of
funding
> >worldwide. Let's think together. And create, anyhow, something like an
> >'International Confederation for Physical Therapy Researchers'. Or 'World
> >Physical Therapy Research Institute' (even virtual, not formal).
> >
> >In order to the validity of future results obtained by researchers of
such a
> >network cannot then be called in question by empowered persons and other
> >people, we should accordingly select those researchers taking into
account
> >their scientific degrees, professional honours, etc, which have currently
> >been recognized in most countries.
> >
> >I am confident of extreme necessity of urgent enhancing the level of
today's
> >PT research, and launching high-quality investigations into the
mechanisms
> >of influence of main PT agents and interventions. On the other hand, I am
> >sure that only sincerely devoted to Physical Therapy researchers from
> >various countries whose efforts have delicately been coordinated by their
> >senior colleagues - informal consultants/coordinators - are able to
provide
> >us with the arguments Frank mentioned.
> >
> >What do you think about, dear colleagues?
> >
> >Stanislav Korobov, PhD
> >PO Box 7, Odessa, 65089, UKRAINE
> >
> >[log in to unmask]
> >[log in to unmask]
>
|