Clinical Case Studies In Physiotherapy: A Guide...

In evidence-based hierarchy, case studies come in the in the fifth level. Although they cannot be considered as guidelines, case studies are powerful material to share clinical experience and knowledge. You could write a case study to represent a typical or an unusual case presentation and share your successful program with your colleagues.

There are general guidelines for case studies but if you are writing for publication you have to be aware of the journal's specific requirements. If you're writing a case study as part of Plus program assignment the following instructions will take you a step by step into the writing process.

A case study should be limited to clinical relevant information. In order to eliminate unnecessary details begin by asking yourself a set of questions: what is my purpose of writing this article what is my message Then gather all needed information and search similar cases in literature to make relations. Try to keep interpretations on the development of the pathology and disease development as simple as possible and keep your article limited to proven facts[1].

All measurement evaluation studies must follow the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN); refer to the COSMIN checklist for guidance. Note: Cross-cultural instrument translations are not within the scope of PTJ unless the authors can make the case that the work has the potential for significant impact on physical therapist practice or rehabilitation science. How to prepare a measurement study for PTJ.

Observational studies must follow the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. For guidance, refer to the most appropriate checklist (cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional design). For further guidance, PTJ encourages authors to use the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist.

LEAP articles highlight the findings of a recent Cochrane systematic review (SR) that provides evidence for recommendations relevant to physical therapist clinical decision making, and, using a brief case, illustrate the application of those recommendations. Only Cochrane SRs with searches completed within the past 3 years should be used. SRs that do not provide recommendations due to insufficient evidence should not be used. Author teams with both research and clinical expertise are encouraged; one team member should be a physical therapist. Authors interested in writing a LEAP article may submit their proposed topic to ptjreviews@apta.org.

Word limit: Abstract, no more than 300 words; manuscript, no more than 2000 words (excluding abstract and references); provide the manuscript word count on the abstract page of your manuscript. To condense information to meet the word limit, PTJ recommends that case report authors use tables whenever possible to provide important details (history, examination, intervention, and outcome information for clinical case reports; program elements and materials for educational/administrative case reports). Maximum number of tables and/or figures=3 (combined total).

BMJ Case Reports accepts cases in a wide range of clinical and non-clinical specialties, so there are opportunities for students, staff, and faculty in medicine, nursing, and public health. A full list of BMJ Case Reports' specialties can be viewed on their Browse by Topic page.

The Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy (KNGF) issued a clinical practice guideline for physical therapists that addresses the assessment and treatment of patients with nonspecific neck pain, including cervical radiculopathy, in Dutch primary care. Recommendations were based on a review of published systematic reviews.During the intake, the patient is screened for serious pathologies and corresponding patterns. Patients with cervical radiculopathy can be included or excluded through corresponding signs and symptoms and possibly diagnostic tests (Spurling test, traction/distraction test, and Upper Limb Tension Test). History taking is done to gather information about patients' limitations, course of pain, and prognostic factors (eg, coping style) and answers to health-related questions.In case of a normal recovery (treatment profile A), management should be hands-off, and patients should receive advice from the physical therapist and possibly some simple exercises to supplement \"acting as usual.\"In case of a delayed/deviant recovery (treatment profile B), the physical therapist is advised to use, in addition to the recommendations for treatment profile A, forms of mobilization and/or manipulation in combination with exercise therapy. Other interventions may also be considered. The physical therapist is advised not to use dry needling, low-level laser, electrotherapy, ultrasound, traction, and/or a cervical collar.In case of a delayed/deviant recovery with clear and/or dominant psychosocial prognostic factors (treatment profile C), these factors should first be addressed by the physical therapist, when possible, or the patient should be referred to a specialist, when necessary.In case of neck pain grade III (treatment profile D), the therapy resembles that for profile B, but the use of a cervical collar for pain reduction may be considered. The advice is to use it sparingly: only for a short period per day and only for a few weeks.

A full-color neuroscience text that skillfully integrates neuromuscular skeletal content, Neurorehabilitation in Physical Therapy delivers comprehensive coverage of the structure and function of the human nervous system. It also discusses normal motor development and motor control, as well as common treatment techniques in physical therapy. In order to be engaging to students, cases open each chapter, with questions about those cases appearing throughout the chapter. The text includes numerous tables, flow charts, illustrations, and multiple-choice board-style review questions and is enhanced by a roster of world-renowned clinical contributors. This text covers both pediatric and adult issues and includes full-color presentation with numerous images.

This practically oriented guide presents the basic science and current best available evidence for each type of therapeutic modality used in physical rehabilitation. Here, clinicians will find the information needed to determine which modality will be most effective in a given situation to achieve optimal patient outcomes. Each chapter examines the physiologic basis for use, clinical applications, specific techniques of application through the use of related laboratory activities, and relevant individual case studies for each therapeutic modality.

Presented in full color, the text is enhanced by valuable learning aids, including chapter objectives and summaries, figures and tables, clinical decision-making exercises, review questions, instructional videos, a glossary of key terms in each chapter, up-to-date references, case studies, lab activities, and appendices.

Cases in AccessPhysiotherapy provide materials for short, targeted case-based learning. They vary slightly, but for each case you get a patient history and systems review, short answer questions, clinical pearls, references, and a comprehensive quiz. The results of the quizzes can be emailed and collected for a grade, e.g., student to instructor. Cases are durable URL-enabled and can be linked to in coursework, e.g., LMS course page, lecture slides, syllabus, etc. See the \"Linking to Content\" box in this guide to find out more about linking to content on AccessPhysiotherapy for course integration.

As identified in the AHRQ-sponsored clinical evidence review, the overall evidence base for the effectiveness and risks of long-term opioid therapy is low in quality per the GRADE criteria. Thus, contextual evidence is needed to provide information about the benefits and harms of nonpharmacologic and nonopioid pharmacologic therapy and the epidemiology of opioid pain medication overdose and inform the recommendations. Further, as elucidated by the GRADE Working Group, supplemental information on clinician and patient values and preferences and resource allocation can inform judgments of benefits and harms and be helpful for translating the evidence into recommendations. CDC conducted a contextual evidence review to supplement the clinical evidence review based on systematic searches of the literature. The review focused on the following four areas: effectiveness of nonpharmacologic and nonopioid pharmacologic treatments; benefits and harms related to opioid therapy (including additional studies not included in the clinical evidence review such as studies that evaluated outcomes at any duration or used observational study designs related to specific opioid pain medications, high-dose opioid therapy, co-prescription of opioids with other controlled substances, duration of opioid use, special populations, risk stratification/mitigation approaches, and effectiveness of treatments for addressing potential harms of opioid therapy); clinician and patient values and preferences; and resource allocation. CDC constructed narrative summaries of this contextual evidence and used the information to support the clinical recommendations. More details on methods for the contextual evidence review are provided in the Contextual Evidence Review ( ).

CDC conducted a clinical systematic review of the scientific evidence to identify the effectiveness, benefits, and harms of long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain, consistent with the GRADE approach (47,48). Long-term opioid therapy is defined as use of opioids on most days for >3 months. A previously published AHRQ-funded systematic review on the effectiveness and risks of long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain comprehensively addressed four clinical questions (14,52). CDC, with the assistance of a methodology expert, searched the literature to identify newly published studies on these four original questions. Because long-term opioid use might be affected by use of opioids for acute pain, CDC subsequently developed a fifth clinical question (last in the series below), and in collaboration with a methodologist conducted a systematic review of the scientific evidence to address it. In brief, five clinical questions were addressed: 59ce067264

https://www.convernations.com/forum/general-discussions/buy-acuvue-define-natural-shine