The Peer in Peer Review Readers are undoubtedly aware of the current emphasis on use of evidence-based practice (EBP) by clinicians in our discipline, as well as prevailing definitions of EBP that emphasize the clinician’s integration of “individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research” (Sackett, Rosenberg, Muir Gray, ... Editorial
Editorial  |   May 01, 2008
The Peer in Peer Review
 
Author Notes
  • Laura JusticeEditor
Article Information
Editorial
Editorial   |   May 01, 2008
The Peer in Peer Review
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, May 2008, Vol. 17, 106. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2008/011)
 
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, May 2008, Vol. 17, 106. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2008/011)
Readers are undoubtedly aware of the current emphasis on use of evidence-based practice (EBP) by clinicians in our discipline, as well as prevailing definitions of EBP that emphasize the clinician’s integration of “individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research” (Sackett, Rosenberg, Muir Gray, Haynes, & Richardson, 1996, p. 71). The extent to which adherence to EBP may ultimately improve the clinical practice of speech-language intervention is largely unknown; yet, what is apparent is that the research community has important contributions to make in ensuring that the “best available evidence” is relevant and trustworthy.
First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access