[ ]
[ ]
[ ]


You must be logged in to post comments on this site - please either log in or if you are not registered click here to signup

physicaltherapy: 05 Feb : 06:54 pm

Is there anyone who has gone through CWT6 or type 1 evaluation with FCCPT?
If so, kindly let me know from where can the following deficiencies be fulfilled?
1. History
2. Systems Review
3. Findings that warrant referral
4. Supervision of support staff
5. Documentation

nani: 28 Sep : 04:31 am

plz pleasec tell me where to do phd in india

Nikhilphysio: 02 Jun : 03:55 am

I am working as physiotherapist in Shalby hospital ahmedabad for 4 years. I have passed out from Rajiv gandhi university of health and sciences Bangalore. I want to apply for Newzealand physiotherapy board registration so anyone there from India who got registered as physiotherapist in new zealand please help me.

Arun: 10 May : 12:36 am

Hi Priyank, welcome. Feel free to go through these forum threads returned by search [link]

Priyank: 09 May : 10:28 pm

Hi..need advice. What are the options in Australia after MPT?


Moderators: Arun, Boopathi, Robin, Diana
Author Post
Sun Dec 16 2012, 04:58am
May I help you?

Registered Member #1
Joined: Wed Jul 07 2004, 04:03pm
Location: Kottayam, Keralam
Posts: 726

Here is a systematic review for the same:

Title: Choosing between randomised and non-randomised studies: a systematic review
Authors: A Britton1 , M McKee1 , N Black1 , K McPherson1 , C Sanderson1 , C Bain2
  1. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University of London, UK
  2. University of Queensland,Australia

Studies that compare healthcare interventions can be divided into those that involve randomisation of subjects between comparison groups, and those that do not. The former, in its commonest form the randomised controlled trial (RCT), is seen by many as the 'gold standard' as it should ensure that subjects being compared differ only in their exposure to the intervention being considered. The RCT has been criticised, however, with some arguing that design features tend to exclude many individuals to whom the results will subsequently be applied. Furthermore, practitioner and patient preferences may influence the outcome of treatment and cause the results to be misleading. These criticisms have led some to advocate the use of non-randomised designs.


This review explored those issues related to the process of randomisation that may affect the validity of conclusions drawn from the results of RCTs and non-randomised studies.


Results of RCTs and non-randomised studies do not inevitably differ, and the available evidence suffers from many limitations. It does, however, suggest that it may be possible to minimise any differences by ensuring that subjects included in each type of study are comparable. The effect of adjustment for baseline differences between groups in non-randomised studies is inconsistent but, where it is done, it should involve rigorously developed formulae. Existing studies have generally been too small to assess the impact of such adjustment.

© Copyright Queens's Printer and Controller of HMSO 2001

Link to the review: http://www.hta.ac.uk/fullmono/mon213.pdf/
Alternate link:

[ Edited Sun Dec 16 2012, 05:02am ]


Jump:     Back to top

Syndicate this thread: rss 0.92 Syndicate this thread: rss 2.0 Syndicate this thread: RDF
Powered by e107 Forum System