Home » Articles posted by Jennifer Curtin
Author Archives: Jennifer Curtin
When the Numbers Don’t Move: Understanding Ceiling Effects, Floor Effects, and Limited Score Spread in MSK Patient‑Reported Outcomes
By: Chad Cook PT, PhD, FAPTA Introduction: I recently responded to a very supportive post on Linked-In that discussed a study we published two years ago on patient reported experience measures [1]. In the observational research study, we found that nearly all of the 50,000 plus physical or occupational therapy patients scored a near perfect […]
Why Individualized Treatment Effects Matter More Than Averages in Musculoskeletal Care
By: Chad Cook PT, PhD, FAPTA Introduction: Imagine being able to say: “Based on your profile, you’re likely to respond better to graded activity than manual therapy.” Or: “Patients like you tend to improve more with individual physiotherapy than group-based exercise.” This should be the future of MSK care. It isn’t yet. If you’ve spent […]
Spinal Manipulation: Lack of Precision Doesn’t Mean Lack of Skill
By: Mark Shepherd, PT, DPT, DSc Spinal thrust manipulation has been used for centuries, with evidence supporting its inclusion in neck and low back guidelines.1,2 Yet, how it’s taught and applied varies widely across and within professions, sparking debate among educators, clinicians, and researchers.3,4 Nim et al.’s recent systematic review5 and JOSPT blog6 challenge us […]
Pros and Cons of Paying Peer Reviewers
By: Juliana Ancalmo, Chad E Cook PT, PhD, FAPTA, Ciara Roche Background: Critical appraisal is a hallmark of peer reviewed publishing. Critical appraisal provides analytical evaluations of whether the results of the study can be believed, and can be transferred appropriately into other environments, for use in policy, education, or clinical practice [1]. Historically, critical […]
Yes, Peer Review is Broken, but It’s Probably Worse than You Think
By: Chad E. Cook PT, PhD, FAPTA We have problems: There are countless publications, editorials, and blogs indicating we have a notable problem with the peer review system used in scientific publications [1-4]. Concerns have included its inconsistency, its slow process, and the biases associated with reviewers (especially reviewer two) who have an axe to […]
