A primer on selected aspects of evidence-based practice to questions of treatment part II: Interpreting results, applying to clinical practice, and self-evaluation

Department of Physical Therapy, Regis University, Denver, CO 80212, USA.
Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy (Impact Factor: 3.01). 09/2008; 38(8):485-501. DOI: 10.2519/jospt.2008.2725
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The process of evidence-based practice (EBP) guides clinicians in the integration of individual clinical expertise, patient values and expectations, and the best available evidence. Becoming proficient with this process takes time and consistent practice, but should ultimately lead to improved patient outcomes. The EBP process entails 5 steps: (1) formulating an appropriate question, (2) performing an efficient literature search, (3) critically appraising the best available evidence, (4) applying the best evidence to clinical practice, and (5) assessing outcomes of care. This second commentary in a 2-part series will review principles relating to steps 3 through 5 of this 5-step model. The purpose of this commentary is to provide a perspective to assist clinicians in interpreting results, applying the evidence to patient care, and evaluating proficiency with EBP skills in studies of interventions for orthopaedic and sports physical therapy.

Download full-text


Available from: Julie M Whitman, Sep 27, 2015
30 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In February 2005, the Annals of Internal Medicine, a highly respected journal, published a systematic review of 59 manuscripts covering a total of 62 samples that reported on the relationship between medical knowledge/healthcare quality and years in practice/physician age. The implication of the data presented is that throughout their careers, physicians fail to upgrade their knowledge to keep pace with new information. I strongly believe that an important-if not the most important-component of continuing education relevant to clinical practice is accessing and reading the literature of this profession and related disciplines.
    Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy 09/2008; 38(8):447. DOI:10.2519/jospt.2008.0110 · 3.01 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Randomized clinical trial. To investigate if patients with mechanical neck pain receiving thoracic spine thrust manipulation would experience superior outcomes compared to a group not receiving thrust manipulation. Evidence has begun to emerge in support of thoracic thrust manipulation as an intervention n the management of mechanical neck pain. However, to make a strong recommendation for a clinical technique it is necessary to have multiple studies with convergent findings. Forty-five patients (21 females) were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: a control group, which received electro-thermal therapy for 5 treatment sessions, and the experimental group, which received the same electro/thermal therapy program in addition to a thoracic spine thrust manipulation once a week for 3 consecutive weeks. Mixed-model analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to examine the effects of treatment on pain (100-mm visual analogue scale), disability (100-point disability scale), and cervical range of motion, with group as the between-subjects variable and time as the within-subjects variable. The primary analysis was the group-by-time interaction for pain. The group-by-time interaction effects for the ANOVA models were statistically significant for pain, mobility, and disability (P< .05), indicating greater improvements in the manipulation group for all the outcome measures. Patients receiving thoracic manipulation experienced greater improvements in pain at the fifth (final) treatment session and at the 2-week and 4-week follow-up periods (P< .001), with pain improvement scores in the manipulation group of 16.8 mm and 26.6 mm greater than those in the comparison group at the 2- and 4-week follow-up periods, respectively. The experimental group also experienced significantly greater improvements in disability with a between-group difference of 8.8 points (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.5, 10.1; P< .001) at the fifth visit and 8.0 points (95% CI: 5.8, 10.2; P< .001) at the 2-week follow-up. The results of our study suggest that thoracic spine thrust manipulation results in superior clinical benefits that persist beyond the 1-mont follow-up period for patients with acute neck pain. Future studies should continue to investigate the effects of thoracic spine thrust manipulation, as compared to other physical therapy interventions, in a population with mechanical neck pain.
    Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy 01/2009; 39(1):20-7. DOI:10.2519/jospt.2009.2914 · 3.01 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In 2009, JOSPT observes its 30th year of publication. During the Journal's tenure, the physical therapy profession has embraced, among other advances, an evidence-based approach to practice, relying increasingly on research to inform decisions related to the diagnostic process and treatment. Concurrently, JOSPT has evolved from a quarterly print publication for readers based entirely in the United States to a monthly print journal with a Web-based edition that takes advantage of technology to provide a growing international audience with online access to articles as well as supplemental educational and presentation materials.J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2009;39(1):1-3. doi:10.2519/jospt.2009.0101.
    Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy 02/2009; 39(1):1-3. DOI:10.2519/jospt.2009.0101 · 3.01 Impact Factor
Show more