Skip to main content
  • Other Publications
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
Advertisement
JCORE Reference
this is the JCORE Reference site slogan
  • Home
  • Most Read
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Advertising
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Folders
    • Help
  • Patients
  • Reference Site Links
    • View Regions
  • Archive

PTJ Helps Clinicians Link Evidence to Patient Care

Diane U. Jette, Rachelle Buchbinder
DOI: 10.2522/ptj.2010.90.1.6 Published 1 January 2010
Diane U. Jette
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rachelle Buchbinder
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Have you ever had a patient with an unusual problem—or a typical problem that presents in an unusual way? Do patients ever ask you questions about an intervention based on information that they googled on the Internet? Do your students ask questions about the effectiveness of one treatment approach over another? If you’ve answered yes to one or more of these questions, you might have found yourself wishing that you better understood how to find and interpret evidence about the usefulness of one intervention compared to another or about the value of a particular diagnostic finding in determining the best plan of care. As a practitioner, you have to make many clinical decisions in the course of a day, often without adequate time or access to the best evidence. And even when some evidence is available, there are many factors that can affect clinical decisions, such as patient circumstances and preferences and clinician experience and education.1

What do you do when there is uncertainty about the optimal management of a patient? You might resolve to do a quick search of the literature before the patient returns for the next visit, but good searches take time, something you don’t have. Or maybe you are able to carve out time for a search and actually turn up a seemingly useful study—only to find that it doesn’t apply very well to your patient after all or that the conclusions were equivocal anyway. In a survey of physical therapists published in 2003, the majority agreed that using evidence in practice was necessary and that use of evidence improved the quality of patient care and decision making.2 At the same time, they identified insufficient time as one of the top 3 barriers to using evidence in their practice.

Because evidence is cumulative—and because it is rare for a single study, no matter how well it's conducted, to provide definitive evidence—certainty in clinical decision making may be impossible. So, one approach for the busy clinician is to rely on the results of systematic reviews to inform daily practice. Well-conducted systematic reviews critically examine and summarize the available body of evidence, usually randomized clinical trials, to identify benefits and harms of specific interventions. Other systematic reviews may identify optimal prognostic strategies or provide prognostic estimates for various disorders. By synthesizing results of individual studies, systematic reviews can save the clinician time in searching and reading individual studies, and, because systematic reviews include an assessment of the risk of bias of individual studies, they also can help the clinician judge the validity of research findings.

Systematic reviews are, in themselves, scientific studies. They start with a clinical question; apply a detailed, methodical, and reproducible search of all available literature; and use specific criteria for selection of studies related to the question. In this way, bias is minimized. Selected studies are then critically appraised to determine the quality of their methods, and, in the case of clinical trials, a pooled estimate of the treatment benefit (and harms) may be ascertained, with an indication of the overall strength of the evidence. Systematic reviews can provide implications for clinical practice; however, in many instances, the varying level of both quality and generalizability of the studies in the review precludes definitive recommendations for practice. This is particularly frustrating for clinicians who may be unsure about how best to then use the information in their clinical decision making. Furthermore, treatment decisions for individual patients often require a weighing of the risks and benefits of many possible treatment choices, the preferences of the patient, and the feasibility of the interventions in a particular setting.

And that's why we’re launching <LEAP> Linking Evidence and Practice (page 9). This new series will offer real-life clinical scenarios, provide relevant information from Cochrane systematic reviews and other sources, and discuss the use of this evidence in practice. The Cochrane Collaboration is an international not-for-profit organization that aims to help health care providers, patients, and policy makers make well-informed decisions on health care treatments by synthesizing, maintaining, and disseminating high-quality systematic reviews.3 The collaboration includes 52 Cochrane review groups that comprise people from around the world who share an interest in developing and maintaining systematic reviews relevant to a particular health area. For example, the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group (CMSG), one of the largest Cochrane review groups, has more than 600 active researchers, health care professionals, and consumer representatives from 26 countries (including 10 developing nations) who conduct and disseminate research on musculoskeletal conditions.4 Cochrane reviews are well known for a rigorous and systematic approach to collecting and appraising evidence, and many advances in the provision of health care have come from the efforts of Cochrane Collaboration members.*

The goal of <LEAP> is to provide clinicians with best available evidence for various conditions in a format that is designed to streamline the application of evidence to practice. Over the coming year we will present a variety of clinical cases along with a synthesis of best available evidence for each case. Emphasis usually will be on interventions, but vignettes also may be designed with a focus on diagnosis or prognosis. The primary emphasis with all cases will be to summarize evidence in a way that is clear and accessible. We look forward to your feedback and your suggestions on how this new feature can enhance your care provision of care. Contact us at LEAP{at}apta.org.

APTA members have access to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via Open Door at www.apta.org/OpenDoor.

Footnotes

  • ↵* A recently updated Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions describes in detail the process of creating Cochrane systematic reviews and lists the new methodological guidelines. The Cochrane Library (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/mrwhome/106568753/HOME) contains both completed systematic reviews and outlines of those that are proposed and in preparation. The Library can be accessed for free in many countries (in the United States, however, only the state of Wyoming offers free access through public libraries).

    • © 2010 American Physical Therapy Association

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Jette DU,
      2. Jette AM
      . Professional uncertainty and treatment choices by physical therapists. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78:3146–3151.
      OpenUrl
    2. ↵
      1. Jette DU,
      2. Bacon K,
      3. Batty C,
      4. et al
      . Evidence-based practice: beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors of physical therapists. Phys Ther. 2003;83:786–805.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    3. ↵
      1. Cochrane Collaboration
      . Available at: http://www.cochrane.org/docs/descrip.htm. Accessed November 17, 2009.
    4. ↵
      1. Buchbinder R,
      2. Tugwell P,
      3. Busch A,
      4. et al.,
      5. Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group
      . Available at: http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clabout/articles/MUSKEL/frame.html.
    View Abstract
    Back to top
    Vol 96 Issue 12 Table of Contents
    Physical Therapy: 96 (12)

    Issue highlights

    • Musculoskeletal Impairments Are Often Unrecognized and Underappreciated Complications From Diabetes
    • Physical Therapist–Led Ambulatory Rehabilitation for Patients Receiving CentriMag Short-Term Ventricular Assist Device Support: Retrospective Case Series
    • Education Research in Physical Therapy: Visions of the Possible
    • Predictors of Reduced Frequency of Physical Activity 3 Months After Injury: Findings From the Prospective Outcomes of Injury Study
    • Use of Perturbation-Based Gait Training in a Virtual Environment to Address Mediolateral Instability in an Individual With Unilateral Transfemoral Amputation
    • Effect of Virtual Reality Training on Balance and Gait Ability in Patients With Stroke: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    • Effects of Locomotor Exercise Intensity on Gait Performance in Individuals With Incomplete Spinal Cord Injury
    • Case Series of a Knowledge Translation Intervention to Increase Upper Limb Exercise in Stroke Rehabilitation
    • Effectiveness of Rehabilitation Interventions to Improve Gait Speed in Children With Cerebral Palsy: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    • Reliability and Validity of Force Platform Measures of Balance Impairment in Individuals With Parkinson Disease
    • Measurement Properties of Instruments for Measuring of Lymphedema: Systematic Review
    • myMoves Program: Feasibility and Acceptability Study of a Remotely Delivered Self-Management Program for Increasing Physical Activity Among Adults With Acquired Brain Injury Living in the Community
    • Application of Intervention Mapping to the Development of a Complex Physical Therapist Intervention
    Email

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on JCORE Reference.

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    PTJ Helps Clinicians Link Evidence to Patient Care
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from JCORE Reference
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the JCORE Reference web site.
    Print
    PTJ Helps Clinicians Link Evidence to Patient Care
    Diane U. Jette, Rachelle Buchbinder
    Physical Therapy Jan 2010, 90 (1) 6-7; DOI: 10.2522/ptj.2010.90.1.6

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero
    Save to my folders

    Share
    PTJ Helps Clinicians Link Evidence to Patient Care
    Diane U. Jette, Rachelle Buchbinder
    Physical Therapy Jan 2010, 90 (1) 6-7; DOI: 10.2522/ptj.2010.90.1.6
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    • Tweet Widget
    • Facebook Like
    • Google Plus One
    • Article
      • Footnotes
      • References
    • Info & Metrics
    • PDF

    Related Articles

    Cited By...

    More in this TOC Section

    • The Revolving Hospital Door
    • Meeting the Challenge of the High-Need, High-Cost Population
    • Partnering With Oxford University Press
    Show more Editorials

    Subjects

    Footer Menu 1

    • menu 1 item 1
    • menu 1 item 2
    • menu 1 item 3
    • menu 1 item 4

    Footer Menu 2

    • menu 2 item 1
    • menu 2 item 2
    • menu 2 item 3
    • menu 2 item 4

    Footer Menu 3

    • menu 3 item 1
    • menu 3 item 2
    • menu 3 item 3
    • menu 3 item 4

    Footer Menu 4

    • menu 4 item 1
    • menu 4 item 2
    • menu 4 item 3
    • menu 4 item 4
    footer second
    footer first
    Copyright © 2013 The HighWire JCore Reference Site | Print ISSN: 0123-4567 | Online ISSN: 1123-4567
    advertisement bottom
    Advertisement Top