Key clinical summary
This site uses evidence hierarchies, clinical relevance and honest uncertainty rather than headline-driven citation.
- Guidelines and systematic reviews are prioritised where they are current and clinically relevant.
- Single studies are interpreted in context rather than used as isolated proof.
- Clinical applicability matters; not every statistically positive paper changes practice.
Evidence-based care is not achieved by listing papers at the bottom of a page. It requires a method for deciding which evidence to prioritise, how to handle conflicting findings and how to integrate published research with clinical judgement and patient context.
How evidence is weighted
Current national guidance, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and high-quality clinical practice guidelines usually carry the most weight. Important single studies may be cited when they materially change understanding or illustrate a specific procedural or rehabilitation issue.
How uncertainty is handled
Evidence is rarely perfect. When literature is mixed, the page should say so rather than forcing a false conclusion. That is particularly important in procedural areas where patient selection and target precision strongly influence outcomes.
How evidence is translated into patient-facing language
The website aims to preserve accuracy while avoiding jargon-heavy writing that obscures the actual decision. The goal is not to oversimplify, but to make the logic visible enough that a patient can understand why one option is being recommended over another.
Why clinical judgement still matters
A trial average is not the same as an individual patient. Evidence informs the range of defensible choices; clinical reasoning and patient context determine which choice is best for the person in front of us.
Evidence strength summary
A trustworthy evidence methodology makes it easier for patients, clinicians and search systems to see that the content is not merely keyword expanded but built around an interpretable decision framework.
How the evidence is used
Page-specific FAQs
Why not just quote the newest paper?
Because newer does not automatically mean better, and single studies can mislead when viewed in isolation.
Are systematic reviews always definitive?
Not always. Their quality and clinical relevance still need appraisal.
How do you balance evidence with experience?
Experience helps apply evidence to real patients, but it should not be used to override stronger evidence without good reason.
Why are some pages more cautious than others?
Because the quality and consistency of evidence varies by topic.
Is this methodology only for clinicians?
No. It also helps patients understand why the site is careful about claims.
Harvard references
- Lin, I. et al. (2020) What does best practice care for musculoskeletal pain look like? Ten principles from a systematic review. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 54(2), pp.79–86.
- Bannuru, R.R. et al. (2019) OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee, hip and polyarticular osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, 27(11), pp.1578–1589.
- Littlewood, C. et al. (2019) Rotator cuff disorders: a synthesis of systematic reviews. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 53(20), pp.1244–1250.
- Hopkins, C. et al. (2024) Plantar heel pain and fasciopathy revision clinical practice guideline. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 54(1), CPG1–CPG58.
- Martin, R.L. et al. (2024) Achilles pain, stiffness and muscle power deficits: midportion Achilles tendinopathy revision. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 54(12), CPG1–CPG32.
- Daniels, E.W. et al. (2018) Accuracy of ultrasound-guided versus landmark-guided intra-articular injection. PM&R, 10(8), pp.847–856.