Abstract
CONTEXT: The paradigm of evidence-based practice (EBP) is well established among the health care professions, but perspectives on the best methods for acquiring, analyzing, appraising, and using research evidence are evolving. BACKGROUND: The EBP paradigm has shifted away from a hierarchy of research-evidence quality to recognize that multiple research methods can yield evidence to guide clinicians and patients through a decision-making process. Whereas the "frequentist" approach to data interpretation through hypothesis testing has been the dominant analytical method used by and taught to athletic training students and scholars, this approach is not optimal for integrating evidence into routine clinical practice. Moreover, the dichotomy of rejecting, or failing to reject, a null hypothesis is inconsistent with the Bayesian-like clinical decision-making process that skilled health care providers intuitively use. We propose that data derived from multiple research methods can be best interpreted by reporting a credible lower limit that represents the smallest treatment effect at a specified level of certainty, which should be judged in relation to the smallest effect considered to be clinically meaningful. Such an approach can provide a quantifiable estimate of certainty that an individual patient needs follow-up attention to prevent an adverse outcome or that a meaningful level of therapeutic benefit will be derived from a given intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The practice of athletic training will be influenced by the evolution of the EBP paradigm. Contemporary practice will require clinicians to expand their critical-appraisal skills to effectively integrate the results derived from clinical research into the care of individual patients. Proper interpretation of a credible lower limit value for a magnitude ratio has the potential to increase the likelihood of favorable patient outcomes, thereby advancing the practice of evidence-based athletic training.