|
|
RE: Classification Scheme vs. Biomechanical model
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Classification Scheme vs. Biomechanical model - November 24, 2007 10:28:46 PM
|
|
|
proud
Posts: 873
Joined: March 22, 2006
Status: offline
|
Doug,
1. Just to be clear. The biomechanical model in question from my perspective is the ERSL etc( or IMP SAL) whatever system you may have learned. You will never convince me that you or anyone can determine if a segment is flexed/rotated in hyopmobile or hypermobile fashion....or if their exists "true" segmental instability( although I am aware that their exists one study that suggests we can pick that up...If I recall it was for the anterior shear?)
All stated in the last post from SJ. I seconded it for emphasis just to ensure the definition is clear for the purpose of this discussion
2. When I indicated the ODR, I am not sure by what you meant by reading their conclusions? Whose conclusions? The ODR was based on a concept.
3. Can you clarify what you meant when you said: ."..those physios who just don’t have the motor skills needed for manual assessment...." because this is a classic argument I have heard used by the "gurus". It's easily refuted. If you are suggesting that the premis of the flexed/rotated, hyper/hypo mobile is an aquired skill....we have a debate on our hands. I feel comfortable with that. Care to clarify?
Kaden,
I can only assume Doug has missed the definition of "biomechanical model" as myself, Crevidence, steve, and SJ seem to have defined it. I get the impression your definition IS the one that is in question. Well if this is true...You seem to think that because that model lacks validity and reliability, those that set out to refute it must have "hateful energy". Strange statement.
Or have I confused your definition of the complex biomehanical model? Answered by this one simple question: can you determine if a segement is flexed or extended.....rotated and side bent right or left....that it's a hypermobility or a hypomobility....and if it's hypermobile....is it a true instability etc. Is this what you might be suggesting?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Classification Scheme vs. Biomechanical model - November 25, 2007 2:04:33 PM
|
|
|
Bournephysio
Posts: 576
Joined: April 25, 2002
From: Calgary
Status: offline
|
Crevidence, Didn’t mean to sound like I was someone famous but I found it quite funny that you posted and removed a shoulder example since: I’ve written about scapular/glenohumeral kinematics in the Canadian interdivisional review, I’ve taught scapular/glenohumeral kinematics in postgrad courses, I did my masters degree research on scapular kinematics, I’ve published one article in Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery and have three other articles that will soon be submitted to other journals. If you can get a hold of my interdivisional article “measuring movement”, you will have a good idea of my views on gh kinematics. In short: the concave/convex rule does a reasonable job of describing gh glides it doesn’t do well in some cases of deciding how to mobilize, the biomechanical model as being taught in the Canadian system does a better job. i.e the rotator cuff interval can restrict er and can be mobilized with a posterior inferior glide. I’ve been using post/inf glides for some er restrictions for at least the last 7 years. Of course post glides may work by a completely different mechanism.
The rct: Ann Intern Med. 2004 Dec 21;141(12):920-8.
Tests need to be reliable. If the test is valid then it is reliable (a reliable test isn’t necessarily valid). Thus, if you have done a study that determined a test was valid then it is also reliable. If you then do a study that determines that the sam test was not reliable what study do you trust? Assuming both studies were well done, I would be more likely to trust the validity study. This is mainly because reliability studies are generally using arbitrary cutoffs to determine if a study is reliable.
SJ/Proud, It has never been clear to me what you meant about the “biomechanical model” It has long been known that you can’t reliably determine if a segment is rotated. I have not seen this in the Canadian system since I’ve been taking courses so around 10 years. Those who still use ESRL type language are usually indicating that the joint is hypomobile in the opposite direction not that it is rotated. So what you are arguing is not a standard part of the “biomechanical model” even if others are teaching this. Either way this has little to do with my post. I was arguing that the concave/convex rules reasonably describe kinematics of joints and PIVMs/PAVMs have valid uses.
SJ Continued bashing of the “biomechanical model” could lead people to believe biomechanics is not important. thus my comment.
Proud: “2. When I indicated the ODR, I am not sure by what you meant by reading their conclusions? Whose conclusions? The ODR was based on a concept.”
I assumed you meant the original article on motion palpation of the spine.
“an you clarify what you meant when you said: ."..those physios who just don’t have the motor skills needed for manual assessment...."”
What is there to clarify? I believe that many people who bash “motion palpation” don’t have the motor skills and proprioception needed. I don’t see how this is easily refuted. I’m sure motion palpation is both an acquired skill and some people are naturally better than others. Again I don’t see this as being easily refuted. I have known several physios and even orthopods who couldn’t diagnose an ACL tear to save their lives.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Classification Scheme vs. Biomechanical model - November 25, 2007 2:29:54 PM
|
|
|
proud
Posts: 873
Joined: March 22, 2006
Status: offline
|
Well Doug,
I am glad you agree that the ERSL etc stuff is garbage. Now I have taken a few courses in the ortho div series recently....just to see whta is NOW going on and....you are wrong Doug. The concepts of specific joint play are alive and well....may be masked using other terminology...but it lives Doug. sorry.
taken the upper quadrant level 3 recently for example. I don't have my manual right here but I can tell you the PMS rib description is there along with the theorized changes in kinematics with a stiffer thorax.
When you say the pivm paivm has valid uses, i guess it depends on your definition of the pivm/paivm. I do think general joint play has valid uses( as described in the CPR studies). using P/A's to get a general feeling of mobility can add value to a cluster of tests.
However Doug, that is not what is being tauught with our little system here. You must know this? ever flipped through these manuals based on the OD system?
http://www.whitmorephysiotherapy.com/manuals.shtml
I have both of them and actually do find them quite useful in parts. But clearly the "tiny specific movements" concept is alive and well.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Classification Scheme vs. Biomechanical model - November 25, 2007 2:30:33 PM
|
|
|
proud
Posts: 873
Joined: March 22, 2006
Status: offline
|
Well Doug,
I am glad you agree that the ERSL etc stuff is garbage. Now I have taken a few courses in the ortho div series recently....just to see what is NOW going on and....you are wrong Doug. The concepts of specific joint play are alive and well....may be masked using other terminology...but it lives Doug. Sorry.
take the upper quadrant level 3 manual for example. I don't have my manual right here but I can tell you the PMS rib description is there along with the theorized changes in kinematics with a stiffer thorax. Students sit there for 2 hours attempting to feel this stuff. the lecturer then uses the typical catch phrases of the need for practice.
When you say the pivm paivm has valid uses, I guess it depends on your definition of the pivm/paivm. I do think general joint play has valid uses( as described in the CPR studies). Using P/A's to get a general feeling of mobility can add value to a cluster of tests.
However Doug, that is not what is being tauught within our little system here. You must know this? Ever flipped through these manuals based on the OD system?
http://www.whitmorephysiotherapy.com/manuals.shtml
I have both of them and actually do find them quite useful in parts. But clearly the "tiny specific movements" concept is alive and well.
< Message edited by proud -- November 25, 2007 2:39:54 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Classification Scheme vs. Biomechanical model - November 25, 2007 2:43:32 PM
|
|
|
steve
Posts: 454
Joined: May 14, 2003
From: victoria, bc Canada
Status: offline
|
Hi Doug,
I agree with you that we are movement specialists and biomechanics are very important to what we do but I think this arguement is being polarized somewhat.
When I refer to the biomechanical model I am refering to a system that suggest that pathology and treatment decisions can be made through a focus on palpating movement in specific segments and directions in the spine and minimizes or ignores important other clinical factors that have been established through sound research. A nice example would be the emphasis placed on alar and transverse ligament testing while most therapists have no idea about the Canadian C-spine rules or Nexus protocol for ruling out fractures. Here we have a case where emphasis has been put on tests that have unknown importance if positive or negative and identify very rare pathology. This stated, we certainly should be aware of these conditions and be questioning how to rule out the presence of the conditions through the clinical exam but we should also be more aware of a clinically relevant fracture that can easily be ruled out through a couple of quick tests.
Certainly research has established that motion palpation contributes to our clinical decision making, just that it isnt nearly as important as what we once thought. There no longer seems to be a need to treat as specifically as we once thought either. Even in the example of the ACL tear, the history contributes more to our decision making than the actual Lachman test that has quite variable reports of its sensitivity and specificity (Between .55 to .99 depending on what study you read). I also wonder why no study has ever established that certain clinicians palpation skills are better than others with respect to the spine and would suggest that some of these therapists who feel they can palpate specific pathology are often misleading themselves in establishing a faulty diagnosis.
Your comment about theory based models - "Some aspects might have very strong support but some critical aspect further down in the logic train may be fatally flawed." reminds me of a great post a guy named Bobcat did years ago on this site. If I could find it I would link it.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Classification Scheme vs. Biomechanical model - November 25, 2007 6:38:34 PM
|
|
|
SJBird55
Posts: 2292
Joined: May 10, 2004
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
Doug, point taken, but my intent wasn't to slam biomechanics... just some of the manual palpatory crap that goes on - and yes it does. It is prevalent here in the States.
Steve or anyone... where is that Cat? I know I'd enjoy a blast from the past. Bobcat was my favorite. :)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Classification Scheme vs. Biomechanical model - November 26, 2007 1:50:31 AM
|
|
|
avalon
Posts: 181
Joined: March 18, 2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Avalon, are you trying to say physical therapy does not work for LBP?
Not really. I'm just saying that a limited model which is focussed on back zones will fail in many instances.
Many PTs treat LBP bu I do not. I encounter patients that experience pain in the lumbar area with/without real physical problems.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Classification Scheme vs. Biomechanical model - November 26, 2007 1:44:50 PM
|
|
|
Bournephysio
Posts: 576
Joined: April 25, 2002
From: Calgary
Status: offline
|
Proud, you may want to read my comments before responding. I said nothing about specific joint play.
SJ, I didn’t think it was your intention but unfortunately I think that reading “the biomechanical model sucks” leads to biomechanics sucks in many minds so I thought that point needed to be made.
Hey Steve,
“but I think this arguement is being polarized somewhat.” I really don’t get this. My first point was that the “biomechanical model” is anything but. Proud seems to want me to defend this model (and is twisting my arguments along the way).
I agree with much of your post but I will say a couple of things. “I am referring to a sytem that..... ignores important other clinical factors” There is no reason for this. In fact the system is set up to accommodate this. The Canadian C-spine rules would fit perfectly in the scanning exam. The clinical prediction rules for manip fit in the “biomechanical exam.” When I started in the Canadian system it was in a state of flux. There was a great push to be more evidence based. New material such as Hodges work was being incorporated. At the 2004 IFOMT, people like Watson, Fritz, Kahn, and Moseley presented. Since then, I think only Kahn’s work has been completely incorporated. The Canadian system has stagnated and stopped incorporating this new material. My wife and a couple of people that I work with just took V4 (the first spinal manips class). I was astonished to hear that the clinical prediction rule for manipulation was never mentioned. At the very least it is the best evidence we have that manipulation even works.
“I also wonder why no study has ever established that certain clinicians palpation skills are better than others with respect to the spine and would suggest that some of these therapists who feel they can palpate specific pathology are often misleading themselves in establishing a faulty diagnosis.”
There are a few different points here. The primary reason that no study has established is that we rarely study this properly not only in the spine but in the periphery as well. We tend to concentrate on reliability and spend little time with accuracy. Even while training, most of our feedback is from other therapists not gold standards. Sometimes we get lucky and can correlate mri or surgery findings with our testing but this isn’t overly common. Manipulation is another point when you can get feedback on technique and has convinced me that motion palpation can be valuable especially for the neck (you can’t/shouldn’t just wind people up like you can do in the lumbar spine). Proper technique gives you a much better chance of successfully manipulating the spine with as little force and amplitude as possible. The second part of the comment about palpating specific pathology has two components. I have no doubt that some therapists convince themselves that they are feeling something that doesn’t exist (e.g. phantom movements of the cerebrospinal fluid). It is more common that PTs ascribe the differences that they feel incorrectly to a specific pathology. If you can manip a joint (even the “wrong” one) and get an immediate improvement in ROM or pivms or pavms what do you think caused the restriction? Joint adhesions??? not likely. I think that there is little doubt that motion palpation in general is a skill and as such you would expect differences between different therapists as well as differences with training and experience.
Doug
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Classification Scheme vs. Biomechanical model - November 26, 2007 4:44:43 PM
|
|
|
proud
Posts: 873
Joined: March 22, 2006
Status: offline
|
Fair enough Doug,
But you said this:
quote:
...It has long been known that you can’t reliably determine if a segment is rotated. I have not seen this in the Canadian system since I’ve been taking courses so around 10 years
Which had me under the impression that you were unaware of much of the specific joint play taught within the system. I mis-interpreted. My apologies.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Classification Scheme vs. Biomechanical model - November 26, 2007 10:05:46 PM
|
|
|
proud
Posts: 873
Joined: March 22, 2006
Status: offline
|
Simply had to say that I think your summary was accurate crevidence. Although I do not agree with the spine surgeon in your area....of course I imagine the spine surgeon is only a little uncomfortable with some recent literature concerning the value of spine surgery....
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Classification Scheme vs. Biomechanical model - November 26, 2007 10:06:09 PM
|
|
|
Kaden
Posts: 264
Joined: June 17, 2007
Status: offline
|
Can someone share with me literature that demonstrates that subgrouping patients provides superior outcomes to PT's providing specific manual assesment?
I agree that for one to say a segment is flexed/rotated etc is very difficult and most likely not possible.
But, many in this post have indicated or at least suggested that a subrouping/classification approach provides superior outcomes to those practicing the "biomechanical" model.
In all the studies I read (primarily Fritz et al is what I am seeing) they are comparing subrouping to a control group receiving general aerobic activity, advice that LBP usually improves and AROM exercises.
It is a leap to make the assumption that these outcomes mean subgrouping is superior to those practicing the so called "biomechanical" approach.
Thanks for the input
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Classification Scheme vs. Biomechanical model - November 26, 2007 10:58:56 PM
|
|
|
jlharris
Posts: 468
Joined: April 12, 2006
From: Nebraska
Status: offline
|
I would have to say that the sum total of literature that PT, in general, for LBP is no more effective than chiropractic, accupunture, simple education, etc, would tell us that the way we've been treating LBP is limited and not very effective. And if you most PT's recieved the same education I did, it was based on trying to determine specific motion restrictions at a specific level, and then fixing that.
I also know that Childs et al have looked at LBP pt's that fit the manip CPR, randomly assigned them to a manip group (matched treatment classification) and, IIRC, a general exercise group (non-matched). Not only did the MATCHED group do better, but the non-matched group got worse.
I also read a study on neck manip and chiropractic. I bring this up because chiros tend to also ascribe specific position and/or movement faults to specific levels as the "problem". In summary, DC's were allowed to manip the C-spine as they're exam dictated for one group, and the other group, a computer randomly assigned the level and manip to be done. Surprise! No difference betweent he two groups.
No smoking gun there, but, IMO, enough to make one seriously question the need for years of continueing ed to learn something that apparently is unreliable, and most likely won't allow you to achieve superior results from just guessing and maniping.
_____________________________
Jason L. Harris, PT, DPT
My PT Blog
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Classification Scheme vs. Biomechanical model - November 27, 2007 12:17:44 AM
|
|
|
steve
Posts: 454
Joined: May 14, 2003
From: victoria, bc Canada
Status: offline
|
Hey Doug,
Thanks for the response... What your saying sounds like what I'm thinking, if that makes any sense. The upper quadrant screening exam is a great way to rule out serious pathology and you would think that every effort would be made to incorporate something like the Canadian C-spine rule while questioning some of the other more traditional screening tests. It would also be helpful to see therapists learning more about likelihood ratios etc so they could incorporate them into decision making. My experience has been that his information isnt even on the radar for the most part with the Canadian system.
Your right about the reliability testing for manual palpation - it has a lot of things working against it with any research study; the 20 or so studies done of the SI joint that consistantly show lack of inter rater reliability confirm this. If there is no gold standard available what are we testing for and how is it contributing to our decision making? Does it matter? I think most of the evidence suggests that hypermobility matters a fair bit and hypomobility a little bit but I wouldnt hang my hat on either one on their own. For me, its a question of weighting in the decision making process and I give it far less than other components of the examination.
I'd agree with you on the palpation of the neck, it certainly feels like you can palpate more and it would make logical sense that it isnt as accepting of a global wind-up technique as the l-spine but based on the research study JLHarris refers to I am again hesitant to put too much worth into identifying a specific segmental level.
With respect to the motor skill level of the practicioner, again I think its importance has been over valued by the physiotherapy community. I believe it feels better for the patient and there is greater confidence potentially from a patient perspective but the research would suggest that it doesnt change outcomes significantly, particularly in situations where standardization has been used to identify patients amenable to treatment. Josh Cleland just published a paper on thoracic spine manipulation similar to the l-spine CPR where novices performed as well as experienced clinicians. Where does this leave us (From my perspective)? I would suggest more time be spent on incorporating well done research into our practice paterns and some but nearly as much time on a few key techniques for manual therapy... but just my 2 cents worth.
Hows school going?
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Classification Scheme vs. Biomechanical model - November 27, 2007 1:47:03 PM
|
|
|
Kaden
Posts: 264
Joined: June 17, 2007
Status: offline
|
Jason,
Good points. However, it still doesn't show any direct evidence that the classification model is superior to PT's providing specific manual assesment. Fritz et al comparing subrouping patients that fit into a manip category with general exercise is like comparing oranges to apples - the intervention was not even close to the same.
I am not arguing against thier results. I think it is valuable to point out that subrouped patients have better outcomes than non-subgrouped for the future of how PTs will look at evaluating patients. However, many in this post suggested that subgrouping patients provided better outcomes than the biomechanical model. That may be their perspective but there is no evidence to support this.
I can find hundreds of studies in the literature showing manual therapy plus exercise intervention is better than exercise alone. Does that validate the biomechanical model - not even close. It simply implies MT pluse exercise many times is more valuable than exercise alone. Just as studies comparing a specific subgrouped population to a general exercise control group does not prove that subgrouping is better specific manual assesment. It just proves that subgrouping patients provides better outcomes than a general exercise group.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Classification Scheme vs. Biomechanical model - November 27, 2007 3:31:19 PM
|
|
|
jlharris
Posts: 468
Joined: April 12, 2006
From: Nebraska
Status: offline
|
However, it still doesn't show any direct evidence that the classification model is superior to PT's providing specific manual assesment.
I disagree. What do you use to determine when to manip vs stabilize vs using a direction specific AROM approach? Palpation? These studies are showing that A. -possibly- a fair number of pt's are not going to get the treatment that best fits them and b. those who don't will do worse because of it.
the intervention was not even close to the same.
That's the point. Read studies on LBP treatment and 90+% will show that one specific intervention was no better than the other. eg exercise vs accupunture, manipulation vs education, exercise vs estim, etc. The point, again, is if one doesn't match the patient up with the treatment that best fits them (treatment based classification) you'd do just as well using MFR or CST. It all migrates to the median.
However, many in this post suggested that subgrouping patients provided better outcomes than the biomechanical model. That may be their perspective but there is no evidence to support this.
Again, I think the evidence that shows that we are not doing any better than CST is a HUGE indicator that the complex biomechanical model we were all taught in PT school hasn't seperated us in terms of providing superior results compared to any other crock being doled out for LBP. Subgrouping is a first step is admitting there is not one magic bullet for treating LBP (ie, PRI, Mekenzie, Mulligan, Paris, Sharman, etc) and that knowing which pt's need which approach is the key to optimal outcomes.
IMO, I think we need to step away from our current "My guru is better than you guru" battle and realize the problem is that it doesn't matter what guru you follow, your outcomes aren't better than the next guru's. We need to look at what is similar, what is different, and which type of pt's respond best to those similarities or differences; not take 15 con-ed classes to recieve a certifaction stating you can palpate and dx something that is most likely not there.
It just proves that subgrouping patients provides better outcomes than a general exercise group.
My question then, to you and everyone in general: Are you subgrouping? If you are than this whole back and forth conversation is moot. We know that we don't have a full compliment of "classifications" and therefore it's up to our expertise/experience/clinical knowledge to determine the best plan of care. You could do a dance over your LBP pt during the eval, but as long as you also see how long they have had pain, does extend below their knee, what is their hip IR, HYPOMOBILITY at any level, and FABQ score (or replace with stab CPR criteria) to allow for optimal treatment based on a classification, you are golden. Heck, even check LLD! (sorry, reference to another thread).
_____________________________
Jason L. Harris, PT, DPT
My PT Blog
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Classification Scheme vs. Biomechanical model - November 27, 2007 3:43:11 PM
|
|
|
Kaden
Posts: 264
Joined: June 17, 2007
Status: offline
|
Hey Jason,
good stuff. I wasn't trying to knock the subgrouping system. I subgroup and feel it works well and I get better outcomes. I was just trying to make the point that it is a bit of a stretch to imply that the evidence showing subgrouping works, proves that specific manual therapy doesn't work.
Again, here we go with the "palpation" and treat scenario. I don't know who is using that and to assume all manual therapist using specific assesment rely only this to treat is flat out wrong.
I use evaluation, a cluster of special tests first to subgroup patients. And then if I decide it is a local lumbar problem that may benefit from mobilization I will to a more specific biomechanical assesment.
Do I need to be that specific, probably not, but b/c evidence shows you don't again does not mean you get worse outcomes choosing to do so.
In summary,
I still don't think there is enough evidence to say a subgrouping approach is superior to those doing specic assesment and manual therapy.
Let's stop assuming that every manual therapist not using CPR and subgrouping is simply palpating and treating with some manual intervention. They may not be using the same subgrouping as some but as stated above are using subjective plus a cluster of tests to lead them down a particular path which may or may not be a manual therapy intervention.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Classification Scheme vs. Biomechanical model - November 27, 2007 4:12:54 PM
|
|
|
steve
Posts: 454
Joined: May 14, 2003
From: victoria, bc Canada
Status: offline
|
Kaden,
Here's the thing - everyone subgroups. If you practice CST you subgroup into different treatment approaches within your model of practice. Studies using "Typical physiotherapy" has the therapist subgrouping on their individual preferences. The problem is is you just "Subgroup" based on experience and unknown variables in clinical testing but dont use any evidence to create these groups you are doomed to perform no better than all those therapists in randomized trials where therapists treat use "Typical physiotherapy" - look what a black eye that has been on our profession.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Classification Scheme vs. Biomechanical model - November 27, 2007 4:23:23 PM
|
|
|
Kaden
Posts: 264
Joined: June 17, 2007
Status: offline
|
Steve,
Point taken. But show me the study where "typical physiotherapy" in studies is a clinician subgrouping and choosing the intervention they would like. When we compare things to aerobic exercise and general exercise and call this "typical physiotherapy" are think we are missing the boat.
I am all for developing criteria for specific subgrouping. Lets just not compare it to a general exercise and posture education group. Why not put it to the test against experienced therapists choosing whatever exercise, manual technique, etc they want and compre outcomes.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Classification Scheme vs. Biomechanical model - November 27, 2007 7:20:09 PM
|
|
|
jlharris
Posts: 468
Joined: April 12, 2006
From: Nebraska
Status: offline
|
Kaden, first I'd like to thank you for the level headed approach you've maintained in all this. I know (reading back) this thread has been very us vs YOU. Personally, I'm not meaning to do that and try not to use the pronoun YOU.
Why not put it to the test against experienced therapists choosing whatever exercise, manual technique, etc they want and compre outcomes.
Here's the problem with that. If everyone is able to do what they want, or, what they feel is "best" then there is no reproducibility. This is a key to developing good outcomes across the profession. Very broad analogy - if you went to your MD for chest pain, would you want him/her to choose whatever treatment they want. Or, one that is standardized across the profession to achieve the highest consistent outcomes?
Now I'm fairly sure that's not the treatment philosopy you meant to portray in the above sentence, but I feel it helps illustrate an important point in regards to the need to standardize PT care to achieve consistent, expected outcomes whether you see me or Joe Blow in California. And relying on an individuals "expertise" will not allow our profession to do achieve that goal.
< Message edited by jlharris -- November 27, 2007 7:23:16 PM >
_____________________________
Jason L. Harris, PT, DPT
My PT Blog
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Classification Scheme vs. Biomechanical model - November 27, 2007 8:32:28 PM
|
|
|
Kaden
Posts: 264
Joined: June 17, 2007
Status: offline
|
Jason,
I agree. Developing standards across the PT profession should be the goal and I hope therapy continues to go in that direction. So, that is why I agree subgrouping patients using reliable evidence should become the standard. Standardizing care would help marketing as well and the publics perception of what we do b/c we would no longer have such a wide variety of treatments for essentially the same problem -LBP. Joe blow would be able to answer the question - what does a PT do? So again, I am in full agreement with standardization.
However, I still don't think the evidence is there to condemn the biomechanical model (and to clarify again when I say that I am not talking the DO model of palpate and mob) is there yet. We may have to agree to disagree about that. I know you extrapolate (which I think can be a stretch from many of the control groups in these studies) from other studies that the biomechanical model produces worse outcomes as we have not as a profession had great sucess treating LBP. However there is no direct evidence IMO to show that those using the biomech approach get worse outcomes or if they could even get better outcomes.
Bottom line though - I agree we should be subgrouping with use of best evidence out there and as you allready pointed out then maybe it doesn't matter how we approach the joint manip or mob from that point. If I feel more comfortable and confident using the specific approach and you using a more general mob or manip approach then so be it. The important thing is that the correct treatmet was selected for the given client based on appropriate classification. ....and I have stated this throughout the post that I agree with subgrouping. I was never trying to be the defender of the biomechanical model of palpate and mob.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
0.250
|
Printable Version
