Meniscofibular ligament – Narrative review of anatomy, biomechanics, imaging, physical examination and clinical importance

Abstract The modern clinician is a research consumer. Rehabilitation of oropharyngeal impairments, and prevention of the adverse outcomes of dysphagia, requires the clinician to select interventions for which evidence of a reasonable likelihood of a successful, important outcome exists. The purpose of this paper is to provide strategies for evaluation of published research regarding treatment of oropharyngeal dysphagia. This article utilizes tutorial and examples to inform and educate practitioners in methods of appraising published research. It provides and encourages the use of methods of efficiently evaluating the validity and clinical importance of published research. Additionally, it discusses the importance of the ethical obligation we, as practitioners, have to use evidence-based treatment selection methods and measurement of patient performance during therapy. The reader is provided with tactics for evaluating treatment studies to establish a study's validity and, thereby, objectively select interventions. The importance of avoiding subjective or unsubstantiated claims and using objective methods of generating empirical clinical evidence is emphasized. The ability to evaluate the quality of research provides clinicians with objective intervention selection as an important, essential component of evidence-based clinical practice. ASHA Code of Ethics (2003): Principle I, Rule F: “Individuals shall fully inform the persons they serve of the nature and possible effects of services rendered and products dispensed…” (p. 2) Principle I, Rule G: “Individuals shall evaluate the effectiveness of services rendered and of products dispensed and shall provide services or dispense products only when benefit can reasonably be expected.” (p. 2) Principle IV, Rule G: “Individuals shall not provide professional services without exercising independent professional judgment, regardless of referral source or prescription.” (p. 4)

Download Full-text

Tools and Resources: Web Sites of Interest

Guides Newsletter ◽

10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2001.marapr03 ◽

2001 ◽

Vol 6 (2) ◽

pp. 6-8

Author(s):

Christopher R. Brigham

Keyword(s):

Informed Consent ◽

Physical Examination ◽

Functional Status ◽

Web Sites ◽

Satisfaction Survey ◽

High Quality ◽

Diagnostic Studies ◽

Physician Relationship ◽

Complete History

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, explains that independent medical evaluations (IMEs) are not the same as impairment evaluations, and the evaluation must be designed to provide the data to answer the questions asked by the requesting client. This article continues discussions from the September/October issue of The Guides Newsletter and examines what occurs after the examinee arrives in the physician's office. First are orientation and obtaining informed consent, and the examinee must understand that there is no patient–physician relationship and the physician will not provide treatment bur rather will send a report to the client who requested the IME. Many physicians ask the examinee to complete a questionnaire and a series of pain inventories before the interview. Typical elements of a complete history are shown in a table. An equally detailed physical examination follows a meticulous history, and standardized forms for reporting these findings are useful. Pain and functional status inventories may supplement the evaluation, and the examining physician examines radiographic and diagnostic studies. The physician informs the interviewee when the evaluation is complete and, without discussing the findings, asks the examinee to complete a satisfaction survey and reviews the latter to identify and rectify any issues before the examinee leaves. A future article will discuss high-quality IME reports.

Download Full-text