techniques - what works?

Mulligans, Maitland, Bobath, Carr and Shepherd, Nordic, etc etc. are labels of philisophical /hypothetical directions. Some work extremely well, and others are full of holes. Are there PTs out there who pick the goodies out of the lot according to their assessment and only their assessment? Is anyone very PRO-someone?
I'm intrigued by labels and how devoted PTs become to schools of thought. Please, some ideas from the converted and the not-so-converted,from someone who knows a bit about all of them and am most impressed by the Nordic techniques.

I find that amitland is useful as an assessment skill, that's about it. Mulligan takes Maitlands concepts a bit further by making on do PA's, AP's alonf the line of facet/joint alignment (something mr Maitland forgot, and Mulligans MWM's aren't a breakthrough either only a name to something everybody has been doing in the belief that it feels the riught thing to do. Well it does for me and i use it often to help "budge things". Carr & Shepherd are great if you need quick results in a healthcare system that is time poor and cash empty (name one that sin't) The results aren't pretty though and bobath is a better assessment technique. Bobath can also produce lovely stroke rehab results but you need 2-3 years 3-4 sessions a week!

As for nordic, it's nice and it is a bit older than the rest. MET is really taken from nordic and can be a nice realignment tool for the pelvis, SIJ etc. Don't think much of the assessment but do like the techniques, "shotgun" especially. but like most osteopathy I believe MET is a useful reactive treatment tool, yet not a proactive approach to general well being. I think one of the best courses I have ever done is Karen Ginns (Sydney Uni - anatomist) shoulder course. A nice refreshing view from someone that is primarily an acaedemic.

What works depends on the therapist using the right treatment modality at the right time and the right mental attitude of the patient. For example, if the knee is quite swollen and usually painful, you might have to control the synovitis first then graudally improve the ROM and endurance then strength. Unfortunately, these days this approach is no longer valid based on who is paying the treatment, which is usually the third party payers. They are not too interested in the actual outcome for the patient but mainly interested in cost containment-return to work, which is being pushed by industrial rehabilitation experts and people aligned with the insurance companies. Hit me with your best shot.

being a physio for some 30 odd years and still loving it I add all techniques to my basket of tricks I dont think it does the patient justice to just believe in one set of ideas. Its useful to have options instead of believing that one technique can fix everything. I strongly believe that you should explore all options for your patient and if you dont have the answer send them to someone who does.

being a physio for some 30 odd years and still loving it I add all techniques to my basket of tricks I dont think it does the patient justice to just believe in one set of ideas. Its useful to have options instead of believing that one technique can fix everything. I strongly believe that you should explore all options for your patient and if you dont have the answer send them to someone who does.