Novak et al. reply

SIR–In responding to the letters that have been sent regarding our paper, (Novak I, McIntyre S, Morgan C, et al. A systematic review of interventions for children with cerebral palsy: the state of the evidence. Dev Med Child Neurol 2013; 55: 885–910.), it is clear we are all passionate about our own specialities; at the same time we believe that the optimal well-being of children with cerebral palsy (CP) must remain at the centre of this debate. We take this opportunity to state that we strongly uphold the principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM), wherein the integration of clinical expertise, client values, and best evidence2 is considered paramount to quality clinical decision-making. The purpose of a systematic review is to summarize the best available evidence. We provided such a summary, but this should not be misread as a clinical ‘cookbook’. We concur with EBM experts that, ‘Systematic reviews can define the boundaries of what is known and what is not known... Systematic reviews can aid, but can never replace, sound clinical reasoning.’ Reply to letters regarding the paper “A systematic review of interventions for children with cerebral palsy: state of the evidence”.