My background is in physical therapy, in both clinical practice and leadership positions. In the rehabilitation world, what we do is guided by evidence-based practice. This means that the treatments we provide are based on proven technique and practices. Unsubstantiated treatments are likely to be rejected by third-party payers (insurance payers and government programs), but more importantly, we want to know that what we are doing will make a difference for those we treat.
While “science” is a broad term, research classification is a hierarchy. It is important to scrutinize the level of reliability of the resources we rely upon.
The lowest level of reliability are reports and studies. These are sometimes provided by those with their own interests in mind, such as healthcare manufacturers and organizations that benefit from promotion of their own products and services. There are also reports on hopeful but unreviewed studies by company researchers. These reports will appear in sales materials, institutional reports, magazines and newspapers. Some of these reports are “anecdotal” and are not sufficient as reliable resources. If more solid research is available, you may find it in links within their publications- follow those links to actual published research when available for a more complete picture.
Then there is informed opinion. A year into the COVID pandemic, I provided an informed opinion article about how Ai Chi could be a practical choice for those with long COVID as they transitioned from rehabilitation to wellness programs, noting that further research was needed. (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9665893/). As a long-time reviewer for the Journal of Aquatic Physical Therapy, I knew the process to share my ideas would be rigorous. It took a year for my submission to be accepted for publication following several revisions suggested by other industry experts. Reports of this kind can provide information and resources for providers and may be a springboard for more rigorous research.
Next there are case reports, which are based on a single person or a small group of people, and while they can also be regarded as valuable groundwork for guiding expanded studies, they cannot be considered to be applicable to all cases due to their limited population.
Case controlled studies are based on a significant number of participants who share study target criteria (such as patients with hip fractures) and compares them with an equal sized control group. The control group may be a standard population who do not share the targeted study factors, or in a “blind” study the target subjects are randomly placed into groups receiving a real or a placebo intervention. The more participants in the study, the better the data will be.
Randomized controlled trials are structured studies that are based on a significant number of participants, intentionally eliminating factors that could bias outcomes, and rely on statistical tools to reduce the probability of something being “by chance.” A study I did as a master’s degree candidate falls into this category, (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18796886/). The advantage of doing research at a university is having a team of knowledgeable research advisors to provide input on the study aspects and the resources to do the study, including assessment and data collection resources and analysis tools.
The highest level of research is a systemic review, which compares multiple randomized controlled studies and literature about a practice, treatment or intervention. Emily Dunlap et al provide a notable example of this for Ai Chi (https://journals.lww.com/japt/fulltext/2021/01000/ai_chi_for_balance,_pain,_functional_mobility,_and.3.aspx)
Why is solid research important to what we do? Because we want to provide the best possible outcomes for our patients and clients. You can have the most faith in high level research that is reviewed and published in credible sources.

To follow this blog, click “follow” below.