Clinical evidence for physiotherapists
The protocol you'd write if you had two hours. In two minutes.
Tell Fysiql the condition and the stage. Back comes everything the evidence says, red flags to discharge: screening criteria, treatment recommendations, exercise evidence, progression thresholds. Every line graded for strength, traced to its source, and honest about where the guidelines disagree. The reading is done. The judgement stays yours.
in 4 sources
Venous thromboembolism remains a listed consideration through the early post-operative window.
Referenced in 4 of 9 sources · clinician assessesconcur
Guidelines recommend quadriceps strengthening from day one, progressed by criteria rather than by calendar.
Threshold cited in the literature: quads index ≥ 80%surgeon protocols
Open kinetic chain knee extension, restricted to a 90°–45° arc.
Sources differ. Show both
Introduce from week 4 within a 90°–45° arc. Strain approaches zero between 60° and 90°, and quadriceps recovery is the priority.
Defer loaded open chain until later. Strain peaks between 0° and 30°, graft-specific load thresholds are not established, and long-term laxity data remain mixed.
Fysiql does not pick for you. It shows where the sources diverge and how strong each position is. The clinical decision, and the record of it, remain yours.
The problem nobody is solving
Nobody has time to read four guidelines between patients.
So they don't. The evidence gets read once, properly, during a degree. Then there are patients, and there is no time, and the literature keeps moving. This isn't a knowledge problem or a motivation problem. It's an access problem, and it shows up in the numbers.
4%
of 483 physiotherapists fully followed recommended treatment for an acute ankle sprain with negative Ottawa Ankle Rules. A further 68% followed it only partly.
Cross-sectional survey of knowledge of and adherence to ankle sprain CPGs1 in 2
is the rate at which physiotherapists follow evidence-based recommendations in daily practice, consistently, across countries and across conditions.
Reported across guideline-adherence research, fibromyalgia and osteoarthritis cohortsNo consensus
on which red flags to screen for. Guidelines contradict one another, leading to inconsistent management, unnecessary imaging, and false reassurance.
International Framework for Red Flags for Potential Serious Spinal Pathologies, JOSPTAnd the obvious workaround does not hold. A 2026 expert evaluation found that a general-purpose language model produces plausible, well-structured programmes for linear protocol-based recovery, but that performance declines markedly in complex, post-operative, staging-sensitive cases. Exactly where a clinician most needs support is exactly where a chatbot degrades: quietly, and confidently.
How it works
One pass, in the order you already think.
Screening, protocols, exercises, progression, in the order you already work. Watch the picture assemble as you read.
Condition and stage, in your own words
What you're treating, how far along, and any constraints that narrow the literature: equipment, load tolerance, contraindicated movements. No forms, no dropdowns. Fysiql does not hold patient records.
The red flags. All of them.
The screening questions and referral criteria published for this presentation, with the source for each. Where guidelines disagree on a red flag, you see that rather than one arbitrary answer. You perform the assessment.
Every recommendation, graded for strength
Every statement carries a strength grade and a traceable line back to the guideline, review or trial it came from. Contested points are marked contested, both positions shown.
The exercises with evidence behind them
The exercises studied for this presentation and stage, with what the evidence shows for each and the constraints noted in the source. You choose what to prescribe.
The thresholds the research actually uses
The objective thresholds the literature uses for phase advancement, with the source for each. Fysiql does not track your patient or judge readiness. It shows you the benchmarks; you apply them.
Why this is different
Everyone else sells you a library. A library still has to be read.
Every established platform competes on two numbers: how many exercise videos it holds, and how well its app keeps patients engaged. Both matter. Neither has read a single guideline for you.
| Criterion | Exercise & HEP platforms | General AI assistants | Fysiql |
|---|---|---|---|
| What you actually get | A search box over a large video library | A fluent answer with no traceable basis | The whole literature, screening to progression, graded and sourced line by line |
| Red flags | Not offered | Unreliable and unverifiable | The published screening criteria, with sources |
| Where recommendations come from | Unstated | Unstated, sometimes invented | Named source, verbatim span, strength grade |
| When guidelines conflict | Invisible | Silently picks one | Both positions shown and flagged as contested |
| Complex post-op staging | You bring the literature | Degrades without warning | The published criteria and thresholds, with sources |
| If your decision is challenged | Your notes and your memory | Nothing to show | The sources behind your reasoning, already assembled |
What it changes
Every patient gets the researched version. Not just the complicated ones.
Ten patients a day, and no realistic way to go and read the literature for each one. So the deep preparation happens for the interesting case, and everyone else gets what you already had in your head. This closes that gap.
- Minutes, not an eveningThe reading you would otherwise do after hours, done before the session.
- Four guidelines, already reconciledIncluding the parts where they contradict each other.
- Sources attached to every lineYour reasoning is documented as you go, not reconstructed a year later.
- The same standard, whoever they seeNot whoever happened to read up on their condition recently.
- Screening that isn't half-rememberedThe published criteria are in front of the clinician, every time.
- Progression against real benchmarksPublished thresholds, not a calendar and a guess.
In their own words
We didn't have to invent the problem. It's in the literature.
Physiotherapists have described this experience to researchers for years. The three below are findings from peer-reviewed qualitative studies. The one after them is from a practising clinician using an early version of Fysiql.
They felt pressure not to be seen as incompetent, hesitant and even embarrassed about revealing uncertainty to a supervisor.
The transition into practice brought stress, isolation, doubt, and a described need to pretend.
Being unable to do the job properly was identified as a core driver of moral distress.
Everything I'd normally go hunting for is already in front of me. The protocols, the screening criteria, what the evidence actually says and how strong it is. No fifteen tabs of papers between patients, no wondering whether what I found is any good. The exercise lists are already built. I've looked at what else is on the market, and nothing else does this.
Security & data protection
Patient data, handled the way patient data should be.
We publish our actual status rather than a wall of badges. Where something is in progress, it says so.
EU data residency, lawful basis documented, data processing agreement available, subject access and erasure handled.
Encryption in transit and at rest, access controls, audit logging, and a Business Associate Agreement for US clinics.
Controls implemented and evidence collection underway. We'll publish the report and share it under NDA on request.
Separate EU and US environments. Your patient data stays in the region you choose and is never used to train models.
Early access
Be one of the first clinicians to use it.
We're opening to a small first cohort and building the next protocols around what they actually see in clinic. Join the waitlist and tell us your caseload. The conditions you treat most will be the ones we cover first.