scholarly journals A Description of the Trials, Reviews, and Practice Guidelines Indexed in the PEDro Database

2008 ◽  
Vol 88 (9) ◽  
pp. 1068-1077 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher G Maher ◽  
Anne M Moseley ◽  
Cathie Sherrington ◽  
Mark R Elkins ◽  
Robert D Herbert
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Physical Therapy ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
History Of

This perspective provides an overview of the randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in physical therapy. Data from the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) are used to describe key events in the history of physical therapy research and the growth of evidence of effects of interventions used in the various subdisciplines of physical therapy. The 11,494 records that were identified reveal a rich history of physical therapy research dating back to the first trial in 1929. Most of the randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in physical therapy have been published since the year 2000. This rapid growth presents a challenge for physical therapists who want to keep up to date in clinical practice.

Differences and similarities between American and European myocardial revascularization guidelines

2021 ◽  
pp. 115-120
Author(s):  
Milan Milojevic ◽  
Philippe Kolh ◽  
Stephen E. Fremes ◽  
Miguel Sousa-Uva
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Clinical Guidelines ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Hierarchy Of Evidence ◽  
Managing Strategy

The development and update of clinical guidelines are based on an evaluation of the latest data from clinical studies. According to the National Academy of Medicine, clinical practice guidelines are ‘statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care that is informed by a systematic review of the evidence and an assessment of the benefits and harms of alternative care options’. These expert documents are intended to provide systematically developed statements that include recommendations on how to translate clinical knowledge from scientific evidence into best patient-centred, evidence-based practice. Supplementing the textbook, clinical guidelines are now being increasingly considered decision drivers, and are being used by healthcare providers to choose the most appropriate diagnostic or therapeutic managing strategy, standardize care, reduce variation, and improve outcomes. The core of each of the clinical practice guidelines are the recommendations developed according to an established scale of the hierarchy of evidence. Although randomized controlled trials are at the top of the pyramid of evidence as the preferred study design for assessing the effects of two or more interventions, in many instances, task force members must rely on findings from observational studies. This is particularly so as trial patients may not always be typical of routine clinical practice. Hence, valuable information can be obtained from both randomized controlled trials and observational studies, including subgroup analysis, cohorts, or case series; therefore, each type of scientific research can be a significant complement to the other and contribute to guideline developments.

Trends in randomized controlled trials in ENT: a 30-year review

1997 ◽  
Vol 111 (7) ◽  
pp. 611-613 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. W. Ah-See ◽  
N. C. Molony ◽  
A. G. D. Maran
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Gold Standard ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trials ◽  
Medline Search ◽  
Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

AbstractThere is a growth in the demand for clinical practice to be evidence based. Recent years have seen a rise in the number of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTS). Such trials while acknowledged as the gold standard for evidence can be difficult to perform in surgical specialities. We have recently identified a low proportion of RCTS in the otolaryngology literature. Our aim was to identify any trend in the number of published RCTS within the ENT literature over a 30-year period and to identify which areas of our speciality lend themselves to this form of study design. A Medline search of 10 prominent journals published between 1966 and 1995 was performed. Two hundred and ninety-six RCTS were identified. Only five were published before 1980. Two hundred (71 per cent) of RCTS were in the areas of otology and rhinology. An encouraging trend is seen in RCTS within ENT literature.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document