The limits of Biologic Plausibility

Biologic plausibility is required for any thought process in medicine, whether it be for diagnosis or treatment or anywhere in between.  This is much like face validity in research.  It is requisite, but not sufficient for truth.  You can’t hang your hat on either face validity or biologic plausibility.

In research biologic plausibility is some of the lowest level or evidence.  That being the case, it is still a valuable tool in critical thinking.  Does an idea pass the biologic plausibility test?

Much of the new and innovative ideas start out as a hypothesis that seems possible considering what we know about the body and how it works.  This is a wonderful first step, no doubt.  This thought process can lead you astray, or lead you home to a nice warm cozy theory.

It should be pointed out that this is extremely limited by the knowledge held by the individual and the field overall.  The basic sciences, or even the advanced sciences of biology, physiology, anatomy and histology are the foundation.  Understanding in these areas is required to make inferences as it relates to patient care.

We  test the treatment techniques  based on the foundation of these sciences to get outcomes.  This is all well and good if the treatment is based off the sciences, off a ‘deep model’, off biologic plausibility.  Again, biologic plausibility alone is not enough, but it must be there.

The more we understand about the physiology of the body and how the systems work and interact and heal and grow, etc the better we are at thinking about biologic plausibility.  It allows us to critique ideas and be skeptical of approaches and at the same time develop new and exciting ideas, hypotheses and proposals.

The next time you are exposed to a new or even common treatment or thought process, give it some reflection.  To the best of your knowledge, does it make sense? (Update: Allan Besselink PT, DipMDT wrote about this sort of thing on May 4th in the Three Legged Stool.  Please continue this thought there…)

– Matt D

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “The limits of Biologic Plausibility

  1. Pingback: UltraSound as diagnostic | PTbraintrust

  2. Pingback: The “WHY” and why it’s important. | PTbraintrust

  3. Pingback: Career Advancement: A reward for being “better” | PTbraintrust

  4. Pingback: An assemblage of what I learned in 2014 | PTbraintrust

  5. Pingback: You Should Be Using Music with Your Patients with Brain Injury | PTbraintrust

  6. Pingback: A Year in Review | PTbraintrust

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s