选择什么对谁有效:在临床实践中更好地利用机械知识。

IF 2.1 Q1 REHABILITATION
Rafael K Alaiti, Bruno T Saragiotto, Leandro Fukusawa, Nayra D A Rabelo, Anamaria S de Oliveira
{"title":"选择什么对谁有效:在临床实践中更好地利用机械知识。","authors":"Rafael K Alaiti,&nbsp;Bruno T Saragiotto,&nbsp;Leandro Fukusawa,&nbsp;Nayra D A Rabelo,&nbsp;Anamaria S de Oliveira","doi":"10.1186/s40945-021-00122-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinicians commonly try to use mechanism-based knowledge to make sense of the complexity and uncertainty of chronic pain treatments to create a rationale for their clinical decision-making. Although this seems intuitive, there are some problems with this approach.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The widespread use of mechanism-based knowledge in clinical practice can be a source of confusion for clinicians, especially when complex interventions with different proposed mechanisms of action are equally effective. Although the available mechanistic evidence is still of very poor quality, in choosing from various treatment options for people with chronic pain, an approach that correctly incorporates mechanistic reasoning might aid clinical thinking and practice.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>By explaining that not all evidence of mechanism is the same and by making a proposal to start using mechanism-based knowledge in clinical practice properly, we hope to help clinicians to incorporate mechanistic reasoning to prioritize and start choosing what may best work for whom.</p>","PeriodicalId":72290,"journal":{"name":"Archives of physiotherapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8638198/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Choosing what works for whom: towards a better use of mechanistic knowledge in clinical practice.\",\"authors\":\"Rafael K Alaiti,&nbsp;Bruno T Saragiotto,&nbsp;Leandro Fukusawa,&nbsp;Nayra D A Rabelo,&nbsp;Anamaria S de Oliveira\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40945-021-00122-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinicians commonly try to use mechanism-based knowledge to make sense of the complexity and uncertainty of chronic pain treatments to create a rationale for their clinical decision-making. Although this seems intuitive, there are some problems with this approach.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The widespread use of mechanism-based knowledge in clinical practice can be a source of confusion for clinicians, especially when complex interventions with different proposed mechanisms of action are equally effective. Although the available mechanistic evidence is still of very poor quality, in choosing from various treatment options for people with chronic pain, an approach that correctly incorporates mechanistic reasoning might aid clinical thinking and practice.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>By explaining that not all evidence of mechanism is the same and by making a proposal to start using mechanism-based knowledge in clinical practice properly, we hope to help clinicians to incorporate mechanistic reasoning to prioritize and start choosing what may best work for whom.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72290,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of physiotherapy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8638198/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of physiotherapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40945-021-00122-1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of physiotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40945-021-00122-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:临床医生通常试图使用基于机制的知识来理解慢性疼痛治疗的复杂性和不确定性,从而为他们的临床决策提供依据。虽然这看起来很直观,但这种方法存在一些问题。讨论:基于机制的知识在临床实践中的广泛使用可能成为临床医生困惑的来源,特别是当具有不同提议的作用机制的复杂干预措施同样有效时。尽管现有的机制证据质量仍然很差,但在为慢性疼痛患者选择各种治疗方案时,正确结合机制推理的方法可能有助于临床思考和实践。结论:通过解释并非所有的机制证据都是相同的,并提出在临床实践中开始正确使用基于机制的知识的建议,我们希望帮助临床医生结合机制推理来优先考虑并开始选择对谁最有效的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Choosing what works for whom: towards a better use of mechanistic knowledge in clinical practice.

Background: Clinicians commonly try to use mechanism-based knowledge to make sense of the complexity and uncertainty of chronic pain treatments to create a rationale for their clinical decision-making. Although this seems intuitive, there are some problems with this approach.

Discussion: The widespread use of mechanism-based knowledge in clinical practice can be a source of confusion for clinicians, especially when complex interventions with different proposed mechanisms of action are equally effective. Although the available mechanistic evidence is still of very poor quality, in choosing from various treatment options for people with chronic pain, an approach that correctly incorporates mechanistic reasoning might aid clinical thinking and practice.

Conclusion: By explaining that not all evidence of mechanism is the same and by making a proposal to start using mechanism-based knowledge in clinical practice properly, we hope to help clinicians to incorporate mechanistic reasoning to prioritize and start choosing what may best work for whom.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信