HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Maher, C. G Articles by Moseley, A. M Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Maher, C. G Articles by Moseley, A. M Related Collections Evidence-Based Practice Perspectives Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Challenges for Evidence-Based Physical Therapy: Accessing and Interpreting High-Quality Evidence on Therapy

CG Maher, PT, PhD, is Associate Professor, School of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, PO Box 170, Lidcombe, New South Wales 1825, Australia (C.Maher{at}fhs.usyd.edu.au).
C Sherrington, PT, PhD, is Research Fellow, Prince of Wales Medical Research Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
M Elkins, PT, M-HSc, is Research Physiotherapist, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, New South Wales, Australia
RD Herbert, PT, PhD, is Senior Lecturer, School of Physiotherapy, The University of Sydney
AM Moseley, PT, PhD, is Lecturer, Rehabilitation Studies Unit, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Sydney

Address all correspondence to Dr Maher

	Abstract

 
Although there is a growing awareness of evidence-based practice among physical therapists, implementation of evidence-based practice has proved difficult. This article discusses barriers to access and interpretation of evidence. Some solutions are offered, including facilitating the publication of all research, use of an optimum format for reporting research, maximizing the efficient use of electronic databases, improving physical therapists' skills in critical appraisal of published research, and fostering consumer access to evidence. These strategies and others discussed in the article might facilitate implementation of evidence-based physical therapy.

Key Words: Evidence-based practice

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Access to Results of... Interpretation of the Results... Conclusion Appendix 1 Appendix 2 References

 
Evidence-based practice is defined as the "integration of the best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values."^1(p1) Within the international physical therapy community there is growing acceptance of this approach, which we refer to as evidence-based physical therapy.

Evidence-based physical therapy has become feasible with the enormous increase, in recent years, in the volume and accessibility of high-quality clinical research. One measure of the growth of evidence is that the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) (http://www.pedro.fhs.usyd.edu.au/) now contains 398 evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, 3,920 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and 713 systematic reviews that are relevant to the practice of physical therapy, 47% of which have been published since 1998 (based on a search of PEDro conducted on February 11, 2004).

It may be that developments in clinical practice have not kept pace with the increase in availability of evidence and that physical therapist practice has not changed as much as it might. Several studies^2–5 have examined the use of evidence by physical therapists in clinical decision making over the past decade. A review of these studies indicates that much practice is still not evidence-based.

There are many reasons why research evidence may not translate into evidence-based physical therapy. These reasons include current health policies, the complexity of physical therapist practice, incomplete access to the evidence, difficulty interpreting the evidence, organizational barriers, and ineffectual continuing education programs.⁶

This article focuses on those barriers to evidence-based physical therapy that relate to access and interpretation of evidence. For simplicity, we have chosen to consider access to and interpretation of evidence only on the effects of interventions, and we ignore issues relating to implementation of evidence about other sorts of clinical questions (such as questions about diagnostic tests, prognosis, and so on). We restrict discussion to RCTs and systematic reviews of RCTs because these study designs provide the best evidence on the effectiveness of physical therapy interventions.⁷ An RCT is a study in which patients are randomly assigned to groups that do or do not receive the intervention of interest. A systematic review is a summary of literature that uses explicit methods designed to minimize bias in the location, appraisal, or synthesis of evidence on a review topic.

	Access to Results of RCTs and Systematic Reviews

Top Abstract Introduction Access to Results of... Interpretation of the Results... Conclusion Appendix 1 Appendix 2 References

 
In the ideal world, the evidence-based practitioner would have immediate access to the results of all RCTs and systematic reviews at the point of patient care. This, of course, is not the current situation. There are a number of barriers to making evidence available to physical therapists. Completed studies may not have been published, published studies may be difficult to identify or retrieve, and relevant studies may not be available in the language of the user. These issues are discussed below.

Publication Bias

Inspection of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials reveals that many RCTs in physical therapy are completed but never published. This is problematic because the likelihood of publication is related to trial findings. Medical trials with "negative results" (nonsignificant results or small effect sizes) are less likely to be published⁸ or have a greater time lag to publication^8–10 than studies with positive results. Three studies^8,11,12 that reviewed publication outcomes of trials submitted to ethics committees have each shown that publication is more likely if effects are large and statistically significant. Egger and colleagues¹³ estimated that the odds of publication are 2.4 times greater if results are statistically significant. Preferential publication of studies with significant results is problematic because it means that readers of clinical trials see an unrepresentatively positive subset of trials. As a consequence, readers may be inclined to form unrealistically optimistic opinions of the effects of interventions. This is termed "publication bias."

The causes of publication bias are not well understood. Rosenthal¹⁴ called publication bias the "file drawer problem." This term suggests that researchers choose not to report negative studies. The implication is that the source of the problem is with the individual researcher. There is some evidence that researchers are less likely to submit negative studies for publication.^15,16 However, the responsibility also may lie with editors and journal reviewers. Mahoney¹⁷ asked reviewers to examine manuscripts with the same experimental procedures but with positive, negative, or mixed results. Positive manuscripts were more likely to be recommended for publication with only minor revisions. Reviewers more frequently rejected or recommended major revisions to negative manuscripts. Those manuscripts with mixed results were rejected consistently.

In some countries, the usual practice is to publish only positive trials.^18,19 Vickers and colleagues¹⁸ reviewed the published reports of 1,352 controlled clinical trials and noted that 75% of trials arising from English researchers were positive, whereas Chinese and Russian (or USSR) researchers never reported negative results. Investigators from non-English-language countries are more likely to publish reports of trials in English-language journals if the trial results are positive. Egger and colleagues²⁰ located 40 pairs of trials, each pair published by one author, where one trial was published in English and the other trial was published in German. Sixty-three percent of English publications reported statistically significant results, whereas this was the case for only 35% of German publications.

We are unaware of any study that has directly investigated publication bias in the physical therapy literature, but there is no reason to suspect that the physical therapy literature is not also subject to publication bias. The consequences of publication bias are not trivial—in our opinion, physical therapy intervention informed by a biased subset of the literature will not be as effective as intervention informed by all of the evidence.

Publication bias could be eliminated if all RCTs (and other sorts of studies) were published promptly, irrespective of outcome. This will only occur when there is universal acceptance among physical therapist researchers, funding agencies, and journals of the importance of prompt publication of completed trials. It may be possible to reduce the extent of publication bias by mandating prospective registration of clinical trials on registers such as the US clinical trials register (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the United Kingdom's meta-register of controlled trials (http://www.controlled-trials.com). (Incidentally, trials registers also alert researchers to ongoing trials and so avoid unnecessary duplication of effort). However, registration is not yet common practice,²¹ and few physical therapy trials are registered. For example, only 52 trials with exercise or other physical therapy interventions are registered on the US clinical trials register (based on a search conducted on April 13, 2003). Ethics committees and funding bodies could promote more complete registration of trials by linking ethics approval or release of funds to trial registrations.

Prospective registration and prompt publication of the full results of completed trials would potentially improve the quality of evidence used by physical therapists. Publication means that the results are available to clinicians and so can be used to inform clinical decision making. Publication also means that the results of the trial can be considered for inclusion in systematic reviews and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. In cases where trials are not promptly published, a record on a trial registry may alert a reviewer to the trial's existence. The reviewer can then contact the researcher who conducted the trial to obtain a copy of the trial methods and results and, if the trial is suitable, include the results in the review. Without trial registration, the results of the trial may have been missed.

Indexing Issues

Many physical therapists rely on readily available databases of health care literature (eg, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE) to access results of relevant research. Of these, only the MEDLINE database is available free of charge to individuals, although many therapists will have free access to CINAHL and EMBASE through institutional subscriptions. These databases index many trials and reviews of importance to physical therapists, but coverage is far from complete. This is because (1) most databases have a start date well after the first physical therapy trial was conducted and (2) the databases do not provide universal coverage of all of the journals that publish physical therapy research.

The earliest trial in physical therapy that we have been able to find is Colebrook's 1929 trial of ultraviolet irradiation for prevention of colds, infectious diseases, and chilblains and for promoting progress in schoolwork.²² This may be one of the first randomized trials ever conducted. Early trials such as Colebrook's trial are not indexed in any of the major literature databases. Although many journals commenced earlier, MEDLINE indexes publications starting from 1966, EMBASE indexes publications starting from 1975 and CINAHL indexes publications starting from 1982. Consequently, all 3 databases miss some physical therapy research. It is difficult to estimate how many trials in physical therapy predate each database, but to obtain a rough estimate we searched PEDro on April 17, 2003, and found that MEDLINE missed 21 trials, EMBASE missed 81 trials, and CINAHL missed 278 trials, solely because these trials were published prior to the coverage of the databases.

Not all databases provide comprehensive coverage of important physical therapy journals. Three studies^23–25 have attempted to identify key physical therapy journals, and, because of the different methods used in those studies, each has produced a slightly different set of key journals. Both the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (CSP) (http://www.csp.org.uk/libraryandinformation/library/physiotherapycollections/corelist.cfm) in the United Kingdom and the World Confederation for Physical Therapy (WCPT) (http://www.wcpt.org/programmes/ebp/journals.html) include lists of journals relevant to physical therapy and evidence-based practice on their Web sites. Table 1 summarizes coverage by major databases of key physical therapy journals as identified by the methods used in each study and by the CSP and WCPT. The number of journals identified ranged from 14 to 45. There was some overlap, but each set had at least 2 unique journals. CINAHL indexes 89% of the journals identified by Bohannon²³ and 78% of the journals identified by Wakiji.²⁴ Other databases appear to have more complete coverage, but in some cases the journals are incompletely indexed and indexing may extend back only a few years.

Physical therapists who want to locate most relevant clinical trials could increase the sensitivity of their searches by searching multiple databases, although this is time-consuming for the busy clinician. Commercially available software permits simultaneous searching of more than one database. However, even when all 3 of the main medical literature databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL) are searched, key journals, particularly non-English-language journals, are missed. Physical therapy-specific databases such as PEDro and the American Physical Therapy Association's (APTA's) Hooked on Evidence (http://www.apta.org/hookedonevidence) do not limit entries to certain journals or time periods, so they potentially provide a partial solution to this problem of coverage.

Access to Electronic Databases

As noted earlier, the MEDLINE database is available free of charge to individuals via PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/), and many therapists have free access to CINAHL and EMBASE through institutional subscriptions. In addition, many countries now have mechanisms designed to enhance clinicians' access to information. For example, in the United Kingdom the National Electronic Library for Health (http://www.nelh.nhs.uk/) provides access to MEDLINE, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, Clinical Evidence, and some databases of guidelines to National Health Service employees. Most states of Australia have similar resources (eg, Clinical Information Access Program in New South Wales [http://www.clininfo.health.nsw.gov.au]). Several countries now provide free access to The Cochrane Library for all residents using National Provision Licenses (http://www.update-software.com/cochrane/provisions.htm). The PEDro database is available free of charge at http://www.pedro.fhs.usyd.edu.au, and Hooked on Evidence is available to APTA members at http://www.apta.org/hookedonevidence.

Access to Full Text

Searching for and appraising evidence is much easier if the entire journal article (ie, full text) is available online. There is some evidence that articles that are available as full text on the Internet are more likely to be accessed, read, quoted, and probably used in making decisions about patient management than those that are not available as full text. This is referred to as Full Text On the Net bias (FUTON bias).²⁸

At present, most physical therapy journals that provide full-text versions of articles online do so for recent editions only, with a small number doing so for free (Tab. 2). Where full text is available, publishers commonly restrict access to subscribers. There are a number of document delivery companies that provide access to full text from physical therapy journals (eg, see list on http://www.apta.org/Research/factsheet_tips/howtofindresearch_related, accessed April 16, 2003), but the cost of this access is likely to prevent physical therapists from using this service regularly. Full-text access is often available in hard copies from libraries, but many therapists find that visiting libraries is prohibitively time-consuming. Access may be a greater problem for those working in smaller organizations or in regional areas.

Electronic publication potentially provides a mechanism for providing low-cost access to evidence in developing countries. The World Health Organization's "Access to Research" initiative (http://www.healthinternetwork.net/) has helped 112 developing countries gain low-cost access to 2,100 journals. The Open Society Institute also provides electronic journal access (http://www.eifl.net/) to over 2,000 institutions in 39 countries.

Language Issues

Many trials are published in languages other than English. For example, approximately 8% of all randomized trials listed in MEDLINE are in languages other than English. PEDro now contains 236 RCTs and 20 systematic reviews in languages other than English (based on a search of PEDro conducted on April 13, 2003), and there are probably many trials and reviews in languages other than English that are not indexed in PEDro. A recent survey of LILACS, a Latin-American database, located 70 randomized trials published in Portuguese and Spanish (de Freitas A, Herbert R, Latimer J, Ferreira P; unpublished research). Some trials are published in a local language and in English, but it is unclear how common this practice is and, as discussed earlier, it is likely to occur to a greater extent with more positive studies. Thus, therapists who restrict their reading to English-language articles may be unaware of relevant evidence. The situation is likely to be even more acute for physical therapists who read only a language other than English.

Translating reports of existing high-quality trials would solve the language problem but would be associated with substantial costs. Nonetheless, it would be far cheaper, and quicker, to translate non-English-language reports of existing high-quality trials into English than to fund replication of trials by English-speaking physical therapists. Research funding bodies or professional associations in some countries may consider this to be a cost-effective way of increasing the volume of available research.

	Interpretation of the Results of RCTs and Systematic Reviews

Top Abstract Introduction Access to Results of... Interpretation of the Results... Conclusion Appendix 1 Appendix 2 References

 
Once a trial or review has been accessed, it must then be read and interpreted. This involves critical appraisal of the quality of the study design (internal validity) and the applicability of the study to the clinical situation (external validity), and consideration of whether the size of the treatment effect warrants a change in clinical practice.^29,30 The results of this appraisal process must then be applied to particular patients' circumstances.

Assessing Internal Validity

There are a number of key features of RCTs that have been shown to affect the validity of results (eg, blinding of assessors or patients^13,31; concealed method of subject allocation to groups^13,31,32). Trials without these design features will tend to show a greater effect of intervention.¹³ Our recent survey of 2,297 physical therapy trials revealed that 16% reported using concealed allocation (ie, at enrollment, the investigator is unaware of the group to which the patient will be allocated), 5% reported using blinded outcome assessors (ie, assessors who are unaware of which intervention the patient has received), and 9% reported blinding of patients.³³ The typical randomized trial in physical therapy is potentially seriously biased.

Many health care professionals lack the skills and knowledge needed to discriminate between trials of low and high quality or to correctly interpret trial findings. A survey of general medical practitioners revealed that most did not understand fundamental terms used in evidence-based practice, such as "absolute risk reduction" and "number needed to treat."³⁴ Jette and colleagues' recent survey of a random sample of 1,000 APTA members³⁵ suggests that similar problems exist among physical therapists. Less than 20% of respondents to the survey reported that they understood completely the terms "relative risk," "absolute risk," "odds ratio," and "meta-analysis," and only 55% reported that they were confident in their critical appraisal skills.

Therapists who have difficulty assessing the quality of clinical trials may find the "quality scores" in the PEDro database to be a useful guide. All trials indexed in PEDro have been rated for internal validity and the completeness of statistical reporting using the PEDro scale, an 11-item quality scale. The PEDro scale has demonstrated reliability³⁶ and is based on the "Delphi list" of trial characteristics thought to be related to trial "quality" by a group of clinical trial experts.^33,37 Scores for individual items (eg, subject blinding) also are presented. Ratings are used to rank the search results, so users are directed toward trials that are more likely to be valid and that contain sufficient statistical information to be interpretable. PEDro scores, however, can provide only a rough guide to trial quality. They do not take into account all relevant aspects of the design, conduct, and analysis of clinical trials, and they do not necessarily weight scale items optimally. Nonetheless, they may provide some guidance for readers.

Secondary sources of information also may be useful for physical therapists who lack critical appraisal skills. The results of clinical trials are summarized in a number of publications, including the ACP Journal Club, Evidence-Based Medicine, the "Critically Appraised Papers" section in the Australian Journal of Physiotherapy, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The first 3 examples distill the key findings of high-quality RCTs (and other types of studies), usually in one page or less, so they potentially also provide a significant time-saving mechanism for busy physical therapists. Cochrane systematic reviews can generally be considered to provide an unbiased synthesis of the literature because they are performed using stringent guidelines (including the critical appraisal of included trials).

Despite the demonstrated importance of study design in the size of study effects, we do not suggest that the results of suboptimally designed trials always should automatically be discarded. An imperfect trial may still provide more certainty than no trial at all. As such, we have suggested previously³⁸ that a sensible approach for readers of clinical trials is to base the decision on whether to use the results of a potentially biased study in clinical decision making on the quality of other information that pertains to the clinical question at hand. If no less-biased information exists, the trial may be considered. However, we also note that, in our opinion, "there will usually be little point in reading clinical trials that do not meet basic criteria (true randomisation, acceptable follow-up, and blinding where possible)."^38(p205)

In some trials, key features conferring internal validity may have been incorporated into the trial design, but these features are not reported when the trial is published. The reporting of RCTs could be improved by a greater use of the CONSORT statement³⁹ (http://www.consort-statement.org/). The CONSORT statement comprises a checklist of key components of a trial's design, conduct, and analysis and a diagram for reporting the flow of subjects through the trial. This ensures key components are not omitted when researchers report their methods and data, which can improve the quality of reports of RCTs. As of January 29, 2003, 68 journals insist on use of the CONSORT statement when submitting trial reports for publication, but the CONSORT statement is yet to be adopted as policy by most physical therapy journals. Of the 84 key physical therapy journals identified by Bohannon,²³ Wakiji,²⁴ and Maher and colleagues,²⁵ 14 have adopted the CONSORT statement. A similar statement, the QUOROM statement, has been developed to improve the reporting of systematic reviews of RCTs.⁴⁰

Systematic reviews provide an efficient way to access evidence on therapy because a single review can summarize the results of many single RCTs. However, there are a number of key features of systematic reviews that have been shown to influence the results. The search strategies used to identify relevant RCTs,^41–43 the method of assessing RCT quality,^44,45 and the method used to pool individual RCT results⁴⁶ can all dramatically affect the conclusions of systematic reviews. This point is well illustrated by Ferreira and colleagues'⁴⁶ reanalysis of 6 Cochrane reviews that used a system for pooling levels of evidence. Pooling is where the results of several studies are combined and summarized quantitatively. The authors found that the conclusion of a review could change dramatically depending on what levels of evidence system was used for pooling. For example, the 4 pooling systems produced the following conclusions for back schools: strong evidence that back schools are effective, weak evidence that back schools are effective, limited evidence that back schools are effective, and no evidence that back schools are effective.

Assessing Applicability

It may be difficult to find a trial in which the sample characteristics and the frequency and exact method of administration of intervention match one's own practice. Differences between the characteristics of a study and the physical therapist's own practice can lead the therapist to disregard the results of relevant research. This may be appropriate if the closest research involves patients with completely different pathology or physiology. Results of a trial also may not be applicable if the intended patient has comorbidities that contraindicate the therapy.¹ However, where the differences are less major, well-designed trials should not be discarded in favor of clinical experience alone. A more sensible approach may be to use relevant research to predict the treatment effect and to adjust that prediction according to clinical experience.^29,47 For example, a trial by Moyer-Mileur and colleagues⁴⁸ showed that daily range-of-motion exercises in preterm infants with very low birth weights improved growth rates and measures of bone mineralization. Infants were enrolled in the study at a mean of 2.2 weeks after birth, and all were tolerating enteral feeding. We might anticipate slightly better outcomes than those reported by Moyer-Mileur and colleagues if the exercise regimen were commenced sooner after birth. Conversely, a smaller treatment effect might be anticipated in an infant who is not tolerating enteral feeding.

Another issue faced by some physical therapists is that there are currently few RCTs conducted in their area of practice (eg, pediatrics, occupational health), or they treat people with relatively rare conditions (eg, cerebellar degeneration) for which it is probably not feasible to conduct trials. This means that the physical therapist may have to rely on lower levels of evidence or generalize from trials using subjects with a different diagnosis who may have some impairments in common with target patients. For example, there are no trials that have evaluated the effect of strength training for people with chronic whiplash-associated disorder, but a recent trial⁴⁹ in women with chronic nonspecific neck pain showed clinically worthwhile effects of strength training on pain and disability. It seems reasonable to assume that there may be similar effects in people with chronic whiplash-associated disorder. Thus, these data could be used to estimate the size of effect of a similar intervention in this patient group. The process of estimation may be assisted by the routine provision of detailed information by authors (ie, explicitly reporting the source of patients in a trial [eg, volunteers, referral]), inclusion and exclusion criteria, and characteristics of the study population.

Drawing Conclusions

The terms "effective" and "ineffective" are commonly used to categorize physical therapy interventions, typically based on statistical hypothesis testing. Although it is very attractive to classify effects of intervention as effective or ineffective, more useful information can be gleaned from knowing the actual size of the effect.^29,30 For example, although it is useful to know that gait training and treadmill training with body weight support for people with stroke is "effective," it is more useful to know that, on average, this therapy increases walking speed by 0.25 m·s^–1 compared with gait training alone.⁵⁰ Classifying the outcomes of trials as effective or ineffective also may lead to apparent contradictions between the results of different studies of similar interventions where the studies have different statistical power.

We suggested in the previous section that to best apply the results of RCTs and systematic reviews to individual patient care, physical therapists need to adjust the average effect sizes found in studies to estimate the likely effect on an individual. However, this process is quite difficult and relies on the physical therapist's clinical experience with that patient group as well as knowledge of prognostic factors. It is likely that with practice a physical therapist's ability to do this would improve, but this is yet to be evaluated by research studies.

When interpreting the results of research studies, it is important to distinguish between situations where there is "evidence of no effect" (ie, a number of well-designed, adequately powered studies showed that a particular intervention did not have a clinically important effect in a particular setting) and situations where there is insufficient evidence to judge intervention effectiveness (ie, there have not been enough well-designed, adequately powered studies to assess the effect of a particular intervention in a particular setting). In the first situation, the confidence interval is narrow and includes the point of nonsignificance, so we can be fairly confident that the intervention is ineffective. In the second situation, we do not know whether the intervention is effective, ineffective, or harmful, because the wide confidence interval includes all of these possibilities. Anecdotally, these 2 concepts seem to be commonly confused by clinicians and, particularly, by health care policy makers. The distinction between the 2 situations is much clearer in studies in which confidence intervals about estimates of treatment effect size are reported.^29,30,51

Consumer Input

Evidence-based physical therapy has the potential to empower health care consumers to have real input into decision making about their care. If this is to happen, consumers will need to be able to access results of research, and they will need to be assisted to interpret this research. Ideally, both access and assistance would be provided by someone other than the treating health care professional. Informed decision making by health care consumers is becoming increasingly possible via mechanisms such as the Informed Health Online (http://www.informedhealthonline.org/item.aspx). This initiative of the Cochrane Collaboration provides lay summaries of Cochrane systematic reviews, many of which are of relevance to consumers of physical therapists' services (92 summaries identified using the terms "physiotherapy" and "exercise" on November 19, 2003). The initiative by some countries to provide residents with universal access to the Cochrane Library (http://www.update-software.com/cochrane/provisions.htm) greatly enhances the potential for increased consumer knowledge. Health departments in several countries also have set up Web sites aimed at providing information to consumers (eg, http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk in the United Kingdom, http://www.healthinsite.gov.au in Australia). However, more progress needs to be made in this area before a substantial proportion of patients are sufficiently informed with high-quality evidence to have informed input into decision making. Patients also should have the opportunity to assist in the development of research questions and funding priorities.

	Conclusion

Top Abstract Introduction Access to Results of... Interpretation of the Results... Conclusion Appendix 1 Appendix 2 References

 
There are problems with access to evidence and interpreting whatever evidence is retrieved. Many of these problems are not unique to physical therapy. Some recent initiatives have improved access to research by physical therapists. Nevertheless, many barriers to access and interpretation of evidence remain. We have suggested some strategies that could be adopted by researchers, editors, reviewers, managers, and clinicians to overcome these barriers. These strategies include facilitating the publication of all research, use of an optimum format for reporting research, maximizing the efficient use of electronic databases, improving physical therapists' skills in critical appraisal of published research, and fostering consumer access to evidence.

In our view, the current problems with accessing and interpreting evidence are not a sufficient argument to reject evidence-based practice. Alternate models of practice (eg, those that emphasize clinical experience alone or the opinions of experts) also face problems, and, in our view, these problems are far more serious. More importantly, we believe that the current problems with accessing and interpreting evidence can be solved by the approaches we describe in this article.

	Appendix 1

Top Abstract Introduction Access to Results of... Interpretation of the Results... Conclusion Appendix 1 Appendix 2 References

 

View larger version (63K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Appendix 1. Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (CSP) Core Collection of Journals in Physical Therapya

	Appendix 2

Top Abstract Introduction Access to Results of... Interpretation of the Results... Conclusion Appendix 1 Appendix 2 References

View larger version (60K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Appendix 2. World Confederation for Physical Therapy (WCPT) List of Journals of Greatest Relevance to Physical Therapy and Evidence-Based Practicea

	Footnotes

 
The authors are Directors of the Centre for Evidence-Based Physiotherapy.

All authors provided concept/idea/research design, writing, fund procurement, and consultation (including review of manuscript before submission). Dr Maher provided data collection and analysis, project management, facilities/equipment, and institutional liaisons.

This work was partially funded by the Centre for Evidence-Based Physiotherapy's financial supporters: Motor Accidents Authority of New South Wales, Australia; Physiotherapists Registration Board of New South Wales, Australia; NRMA Insurance, Australia; and New South Wales Department of Health, Australia.

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Access to Results of... Interpretation of the Results... Conclusion Appendix 1 Appendix 2 References

 

1. Sackett DL, Strauss SE, Richardson WS, et al. Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. 2nd ed. Edinburgh, Scotland: Churchill Livingstone;2000 .
2. Metcalfe C, Lewin R, Wisher S, et al. Barriers to implementing the evidence base in four NHS therapies: dietitians, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, speech and language therapists. Physiotherapy.2001; 87:433–441.
3. Turner P, Mjolne I. Journal provision and the prevalence of journal clubs: a survey of physiotherapy departments in England and Australia. Physiother Res Int.2001; 6:157–169.[Medline]
4. Carr JH, Mungovan SF, Shepherd RB, et al. Physiotherapy in stroke rehabilitation: bases for Australian physiotherapists' choice of treatment. Physiotherapy Theory & Practice.1994; 10:201–209.
5. Nilsson LM, Nordholm LA. Physical therapy in stroke rehabilitation: bases for Swedish physiotherapists' choice of treatment. Physiotherapy Theory & Practice.1992; 8:49–55.
6. Haynes B, Haines A. Barriers and bridges to evidence based clinical practice. BMJ.1998; 317:273–276.[Free Full Text]
7. National Health and Medical Research Council. How to Use the Evidence: Assessment and Application of Scientific Evidence. Canberra, Australia Capital Territory, Australia: Biotext;2000 .
8. Stern JM, Simes RJ. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ.1997; 315:640–645.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Hopewell S, Clarke M, Stewart L, Tierney J. Time to publication for results of clinical trials. In: The Cochrane Library. Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons Ltd;2003; issue 4.
10. Scherer RW, Langenberg P. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. In: The Cochrane Library.l Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons Ltd;2003; issue 4.
11. Dickersin K, Min YI, Meinert CL. Factors influencing publication of research results: follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA.1992; 267:374–378.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
12. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet.1991; 337:867–872.[Web of Science][Medline]
13. Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, et al. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess.2003; 7:1–76.[Medline]
14. Rosenthal R. The "file-drawer problem" and tolerance for null results. Psychol Bull.1979; 86:638–641.[Web of Science]
15. Begg C, Berlin J. Publication bias: a problem in interpreting medical data. J R Stat Soc A Stat Soc.1988; 151:419–463.
16. Light RJ. Accumulating evidence from independent studies: what we can win and what we can lose. Stat Med.1987; 6:221–231.[Web of Science][Medline]
17. Mahoney M. Publication prejudices: an experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cog Ther Res.1977; 1:161–175.
18. Vickers A, Goyal N, Harland R, Rees R. Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials. Control Clin Trials.1998; 19:159–166.[Web of Science][Medline]
19. McAuley L, Pham B, Tugwell P, Moher D. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses? Lancet.2000; 356:1228–231.[Web of Science][Medline]
20. Egger M, Zellweger-Zahner T, Schneider M, et al. Language bias in randomised controlled trials in English and German. Lancet.1997; 350:326–329.[Web of Science][Medline]
21. Tonks A. A clinical trials register for Europe. BMJ.2002; 325:1314–1315.[Free Full Text]
22. Colebrook D. Irradiation and health, A: ultra-violet irradiation of school children. Medical Research Council. Special Report Series.1929; 131:1–47.
23. Bohannon RW. Core journals of physiotherapy. Physiotherapy.1999; 85:317–321.
24. Wakiji EM. Mapping the literature of physical therapy. Bull Med Libr Assoc.1997; 85:284–288.[Web of Science][Medline]
25. Maher CG, Moseley AM, Sherrington C, Herbert RD. Core journals of evidence-based physiotherapy practice. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice.2001; 17:143–51.
26. Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, Moseley AM. Dialogue on evidence in practice. Phys Ther.2002; 82:722.[Free Full Text]
27. Ciccone CD. Can a comprehensive lymphedema management program decrease limb size and reduce the incidence of infection in a woman with postmastectomy lymphedema? [Evidence in practice]. Phys Ther.2002; 82:276–282.[Free Full Text]
28. Wentz R. Visibility of research: FUTON bias. Lancet.2002; 360:1256.[Web of Science][Medline]
29. Herbert RD. How to estimate treatment effects from reports of clinical trials, I: continuous outcomes. Aust J Physiother.2000; 46:229–235.[Web of Science][Medline]
30. Herbert RD. How to estimate treatment effects from reports of clinical trials, II: dichotomous outcomes. Aust J Physiother.2000; 46:309–313.[Web of Science][Medline]
31. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA.1995; 273:408–412.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
32. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet.1998; 352:609–613.[Web of Science][Medline]
33. Moseley AM, Herbert RD, Sherrington C, Maher CG. Evidence for physiotherapy practice: a survey of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Aust J Physiother.2002; 48:43–49.[Web of Science][Medline]
34. Young JM, Glasziou P, Ward JE. General practitioners' self ratings in evidence-based medicine: validation study. BMJ.2002; 324:950–951.[Free Full Text]
35. Jette DU, Bacon K, Batty C, et al. Evidence-based practice: beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors of physical therapists. Phys Ther.2003; 83:786–805.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
36. Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, et al. Reliability of the PEDro Scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther.2003; 83:713–721.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
37. Verhagen A, de Vet H, de Bie R, et al. The Delphi List: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol.1998; 51:1235–1241.[Web of Science][Medline]
38. Herbert RD, Sherrington C, Maher CG, Moseley AM. Evidence-based practice: imperfect but necessary. Physiotherapy Theory & Practice.2001; 17:201–211.
39. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet.2001; 357:1191–1194.[Web of Science][Medline]
40. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement—quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet.1999; 354:1896–1900.[Web of Science][Medline]
41. Helmer D, Savoie I, Green C, Kazanjian A. Evidence-based practice: extending the search to find material for the systematic review. Bull Med Libr Assoc.2001; 89:346–352.[Web of Science][Medline]
42. Eysenbach G, Tuische J, Diepgen TC. Evaluation of the usefulness of Internet searches to identify unpublished clinical trials for systematic reviews. Med Inform Internet Med.2001; 26:203–218.[Web of Science][Medline]
43. Clark O, Castro A. Searching the Literatura Latino Americana e do Caribe em Ciencias da Saude (LILACS) database improves systematic reviews. Int J Epidemiol.2002; 31:112–114.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
44. Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA.1999; 282:1054–1060.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
45. Colle F, Rannou F, Revel M, et al. Impact of quality scales on levels of evidence inferred from a systematic review of exercise therapy and low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.2002; 83:1745–1752.[Web of Science][Medline]
46. Ferreira PH, Ferreira ML, Maher CG, et al. Effect of applying different "levels of evidence" on conclusions of Cochrane reviews of interventions for low back pain. J Clin Epidemiol.2002; 55:1126–1129.[Web of Science][Medline]
47. Glasziou PP, Irwig LM. An evidence based approach to individualising treatment. BMJ.1995; 311:1356–1359.[Free Full Text]
48. Moyer-Mileur LJ, Brunstetter V, McNaught TP, et al. Daily physical activity program increases bone mineralization and growth in preterm very low birth weight infants. Pediatrics.2000; 106:1088–1092.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
49. Ylinen J, Takala E, Nykanen M, et al. Active neck muscle training in the treatment of chronic neck pain in women: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA.2003; 289:2509–2516.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
50. Pohl M, Mehrholz J, Ritschel C, Ruckriem S. Speed-dependent treadmill training in ambulatory hemiparetic stroke patients: a randomized controlled trial. Stroke.2002; 33:553–558.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
51. Altman DG, Machin D, Gardner MJ, eds. Statistics With Confidence: Confidence Intervals and Statistical Guidelines. 2nd ed. London, United Kingdom: BMJ Books;2000 .

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N. M. Salbach, S. J.T. Guilcher, S. B. Jaglal, and D. A. Davis Factors Influencing Information Seeking by Physical Therapists Providing Stroke Management Physical Therapy, October 1, 2009; 89(10): 1039 - 1050. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. M. Salbach, P. Veinot, S. Rappolt, M. Bayley, D. Burnett, M. Judd, and S. B. Jaglal Physical Therapists' Experiences Updating the Clinical Management of Walking Rehabilitation After Stroke: A Qualitative Study Physical Therapy, June 1, 2009; 89(6): 556 - 568. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. A. Olivo, L. G. Macedo, I. C. Gadotti, J. Fuentes, T. Stanton, and D. J Magee Scales to Assess the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review Physical Therapy, February 1, 2008; 88(2): 156 - 175. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. B. Ratner Evidence-Based Practice: An Examination of Its Ramifications for the Practice of Speech-Language Pathology Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch, October 1, 2006; 37(4): 257 - 267. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. J. Nail-Chiwetalu and N. B. Ratner Information literacy for speech-language pathologists: a key to evidence-based practice. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch, July 1, 2006; 37(3): 157 - 167. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. D Henley and D. M Frank Reporting Ethical Protections in Physical Therapy Research Physical Therapy, April 1, 2006; 86(4): 499 - 509. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. J. Johnson Getting started in evidence-based practice for childhood speech-language disorders. Am J Speech Lang Pathol, February 1, 2006; 15(1): 20 - 35. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Maher, C. G Articles by Moseley, A. M Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Maher, C. G Articles by Moseley, A. M Related Collections Evidence-Based Practice Perspectives Social Bookmarking                      What's this?