Introduction

The following article is the second in a short series of articles originally published in the Australasian Journal of Podiatric Medicine. The first article on integrating research into the clinical practice appeared in JAPMA Vol 92, No 2, February 2002.

This series of articles attempts to dispel some of the myths surrounding the current trends in evidence based practice (EBP) in an effort to put it and clinical research into some meaningful and practical context. The series is written by three podiatrists who are not only active researchers but also practicing clinicians. As clinicians first and researchers second, these authors are well aware that all too often research method papers preach to readers as though they were research students who should want to learn to “do” their own research. What separates this series from some others, however, is that its aim is not to evangelize, but to provide some useful pointers on making research work for busy clinicians in their day-to-day practice.

The series began with an article that put evidence based practice into context with other elements of the clinical decision making process. The strengths and weaknesses of the evidence based practice approach were discussed and the implications for individual patients, as well as for the more global health policy perspective, were developed. The article aimed to provide some avenues through which podiatric physicians can realistically become better informed and discerning consumers of what is an ever-growing mountain of research data. The series looks at how practitioners can keep abreast of the changes in their field, using methods tailored to work for them.

Two of the articles in the series are written as a basic “toolkit” for interpreting research output. Background information on the key features of good and bad research is provided, and the appropriate and inappropriate uses of some of the more widely used research methods are examined. These articles build upon the concept of “hierarchy of evidence” and outline useful methods for sorting information from what should be allowed to influence practice from that which can be safely ignored. The final article in the series looks at the basics of the numbers game in research, an area often consigned by nonresearchers to the infamous “too-hard basket.” A positive offshoot of the evidence based practice revolution has been the introduction of some statistical concepts aimed at assisting the practitioner, rather than showing off the skills of the statistician. The article discusses how researchers can do much more to meet the needs of clinicians and explains how some of these intuitive new statistical techniques are outlined. Finally, the practitioner is led through some of the more traditional concepts, and simple guidelines are introduced to aid the practitioner in reading and using the often fearsome statistical output found in the research literature.

The end result is not light reading, although every effort was made to eliminate the jargon and hyperbole surrounding the recent revolution in medical research and evidence based practice. Some concentration will be required to work through the series, as the acquisition of any new skill requires some thought and personal investment. Investment in skills such as these, however, will support continual development and professional growth, and it is every bit as important as developing the more clinical skills that are now taken for granted.

The series is aimed, unashamedly, at the vast majority of podiatrists who either have no interest, or no time, to become active researchers themselves. After reading the three articles, it is hoped that this large and influential group will be slightly better informed consumers of the information out there, and that they will delight in bringing their new skills to the service of their patients and practices.