A consensus clinical reasoning framework for best practice for the examination of the cervical spine region has been developed through an iterative consultative process with experts and manual physical therapy organisations. The framework was approved by the 22 member countries of the International Federation of Orthopaedic Manipulative Physical Therapists (October 2012). The purpose of the framework is to provide guidance to clinicians for the assessment of the cervical region for potential of Cervical Arterial Dysfunction in advance of planned management (inclusive of manual therapy and exercise interventions). The best, most recent scientific evidence is combined with international expert opinion, and is presented with the intention to be informative, but not prescriptive; and therefore as an aid to the clinician's clinical reasoning. Important underlying principles of the framework are that 1] although presentations and adverse events of Cervical Arterial Dysfunction are rare, it is a potentially serious condition and needs to be considered in musculoskeletal assessment; 2] manual therapists cannot rely on the results of one clinical test to draw conclusions as to the presence or risk of Cervical Arterial Dysfunction; and 3] a clinically reasoned understanding of the patient's presentation, including a risk:benefit analysis, following an informed, planned and individualised assessment, is essential for recognition of this condition and for safe manual therapy practice in the cervical region. Clinicians should also be cognisant of jurisdictionally specific requirements and obligations, particularly related to patient informed consent, when intending to use manual therapy in the cervical region.

This paper explores the nature of causation within the framework of evidence‐based practice (EBP) for health care. The aims of the paper were first to define and evaluate how causation is presently accounted for in EBP; second, to present an alternative causal account by which health care can develop in both its clinical application and its scientific research activity. The paper was premised on the idea that causation underlies medical and health care practices and impacts on the way we understand health science research and daily clinical practice. The question of what causation is should therefore be of utmost relevance for all concerned with the science, philosophy and progress of EBP. We propose that the way causation is thought of in contemporaneous health care is exposed by evidential frameworks, which categorize research methods on their epistemological strengths. It is then suggested that the current account of causation is limited in respect of both the functionality of EBP, and its inherent scientific processes. An alternative ontology of causation is provided, which has its roots in dispositionalism. Here, causes are not seen as regular events necessitating an effect, but rather phenomena that are highly complex, context‐sensitive and that tend towards an effect. We see this as a better account of causation for evidence‐based health care.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract