-----Original Message-----
From: ROBIN SHUTT <[log in to unmask]>
To: physio <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Saturday, January 30, 1999 8:19 PM
Subject: RE: SCIENCE TODAY?
>No - I think it is Exactly what is increasingly required for
ublication -
>to the detriment of clear and clinically useful communication with current
>practitioners, who no longer read the articles due to the mass of
statistics
>and priesthood jargon (UN)necessarily contained to get published in the
>first place!
I do agree with Mr Shutt that many authors could write in a more concise
manner in order to make their work more understandable to the clinicians. It
seems as though Dr Siff has tapped into some real frustration regarding the
editors of our journals. I wouldn't know since I have not had the pleasure
as yet.
However I think too many physios (and other professionals) use the jargon
and statistics as excuses to not read research that might challenge their
"clinical judgement" or experience. As professionals, we must be aware of
what is being published about the value of therapeutic interventions, and we
should also do this in the interest of our patients !!
There is a series from JAMA that is well written regarding how to use
medical literature which I recommend to all. It can be found at
http://hiru.mcmaster.ca/ebm/userguide/0_users.htm
Although learning about odds ratios, confidence intervals, and study design
may seem tiresome and too much trouble for many clinicians, it is vital that
we are able to read current literature critically - to use it where
appropriate and to wait for further research if needed as well. This will
also help us to present our profession as more of a science than an art (I
KNOW it it both) to other professionals and to the public.
I think the authors, editors, and audience could all make changes in order
to strengthen our profession.
Michael Meddows PT
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|