’ By Smad signaling restricting the embryonic

researcher’s horizons to a limited definition of ‘best research evidence’ are we narrowing our focus too much and stifling the creativity of some of the outstanding physiotherapy researchers of the future? Further, are randomised trials actually the appropriate design for the question being asked? Prognostic studies, for example, are seldom best dealt with in this way. A dilemma for the consumer of research, whether clinician, teacher or researcher, who wishes to translate research findings into treatment directions, is that research evidence is situated somewhere on a continuum and although one end of that is represented by the conclusive and comprehensive synthesis of information from the highest level studies, there may be other levels of evidence that can provide assistance in formulating effective treatments (Hjørland Staurosporine 2011). We have perhaps rejected

the broader, more exploratory research models because the highest level of evidence is perceived to be the Holy Grail of clinical research, but in the absence of such evidence, what do we do? The prominence given to ‘high’ levels of evidence means that researchers may be coerced into carrying out clinical trials without the benefit of solid theoretical bases and a comprehensive understanding of operational mechanisms. If the experimental question is flawed, the trial will be irrelevant. Examples of alternative models for the development of best practice guidelines do exist. In the ‘Kaufman Best Practices Project’ approach, what we tend to define as evidence-based practice was not applied as the sole criterion, Edoxaban but rather as part of a wider matrix, in which a treatment could achieve ‘best practice’ status only if it could

also demonstrate a sound theoretical base, general acceptance in clinical practice, a substantial body of supporting anecdotal or clinical literature, and absence of adverse effects or harm (Kaufman Foundation 2004). Are we in danger of creating an environment in which clinical and academic physiotherapists are unwilling to go anywhere unless there is a narrowly defined body of ‘evidence’ to support them? If so, our collective research output will become less ground-breaking and our professional practice more robotic. We should remember that much of what has become our best clinical practice originated through eclectic and far-reaching surveys of relevant science. The Motor Relearning Program (Carr and Shepherd 1987) began through a comprehensive collation of up-to-date information from neurophysiology, biomechanics, human ecology, behavioural science, and many other areas. This synthesis led, in turn, to the development of a provisional theoretical framework and the generation of testable hypotheses.