Its been a while since we went round the stump on this one and it keeps coming up, so...
There have been a couple of VP threads
running recently. People have put forward a number of interesting ideas including banana skin and silicon sheets. Not included in the cochrane review
because of a lack of RCT level EVIDENCE.
There is the thread on proprioceptive
) phenomenon which observes a possibly new concept, or possibly nothing at all. We don't really know because we don't have EVIDENCE.
We have the droopy eyelid thread
where we mock Brian
for making exaggeratted claims with no EVIDENCE to back them up (unless you count 4 photos of people opening their eyes,
Check out Robeer NCF, negative carbon footprint insoles, they're ace. But i digress).
There is the researcher vs the clinician thread
in which the level to which Medial heel skives is supported by evidence is questioned.
There are the acupuncture
threads. Plenty of evidence, diddly squat rational.
Less so on this forum because Australia and America appear less prone to accept the Next Big Thing but on the society forum we are once again doing the homeopathy debate
. And looking for EVIDENCE.
I therefore wish to ask the Question
What level of evidence should we look for before we accept a treatment or new paradigm as USABLE in practice.
What level of evidence should we look for before we accept a treatment or new paradigm as ESTABLISHED.
As a proffession, what should our response be to modalities which have good anecdotal outcomes but lack an evidence base to support them.
Or any other relevant observations.