Dear Herb
I only formally measured intensity, although duration and freq were part of
my usual physio assessment, not part of the study.
I used a full body chart measured the surface area and subtracted the shaded
areas, a tricky piece of geometry. This was my idea and one I had not seen
before. Other studies use zones, ie number of zones the shading impinges
upon.
As the project was self funded and time resources my own as well as a full
clinical week, mine was very kiss.
Regards Kevin
----- Original Message -----
From: Herb Silver, PT, <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2000 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Questions about CMT research
> Kevin:
>
> Did you use a VAS for duration and frequency or just for intensity?
>
> If you didn't use a VAS for duration and frequency, did you ask
> questions--Do you have pain at night? How many hours?, etc?
>
> How did you measure the drawing--did you use a BIG picture of only the
> shoulder girdle area?
>
> I am interested in doing more clinical measures and am looking for KISS
> (keep it simple stupid) methodologies.
>
> Herb
>
> At 03:01 PM 12/10/00 +0000, you wrote:
> >Dear Herb
> >
> >For the intensity I used the boring but well established Visual Analogue
> >Scale. For distribution I asked the patient to shade in body charts and
> >measured the surface area shaded. Both gave numerical readings. In my own
> >practice I like to use; frequency, duration and intensity, but patient
> >compliance was a big factor and I did not like to overload them. I do
> >understand the contreversy over using numerical data for subjective
findings
> >and also used as much desriptive data as possible. The both coincided
well.
> >
> >They were asked to fill in the sheets when possible and the same time of
> >day, in the same room and alone. I did get an excellent compliance rate.
> >
> >Regards Kevin
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Herb Silver, PT, <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: <[log in to unmask]>
> >Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2000 12:39 PM
> >Subject: Questions about CMT research
> >
> >
> > > Kevin:
> > >
> > > 1. What did you use as a measure of pain
> > >
> > > 2. Did you measure "area of pain"
> > >
> > > 3. Did you measure "duration of pain"
> > >
> > > Herb Silver, PT
> > >
> > > At 12:15 PM 12/9/00 +0000, you wrote:
> > > >Dear Joseph
> > > >
> > > >The majority of the references are not RCT's but I would not say
> >anecdotal.
> > > >RCT is a simple research tool, hoping for a homogenous sample, one
> > > >experimental variable and one to monitor change. When dealing with
> > > >complicated organisms this may be too simple and this is why I reel
many
> > > >RCT's are not applicable to therapy research. The Dr's/Cons are
begining
> >to
> > > >catch on to this newer way of reasoning present in the therapies for
some
> > > >years.
> > > >
> > > >My research was five single subject designs monitoring intensity and
> >spread
> > > >of self reported pain in chronic LBP. CTM was introduced and
numerical
> > > >scores were attained. Using Ottenbachers semi statistical analysis I
was
> > > >able to say that serial dependency (one measure influencing the
next),
> >was
> > > >unlikely to be present and four of the five cases showed clinical and
> > > >statistically significant reduction in these two measures of pain.
> > > >
> > > >This of course does not mean CTM cures 80% of chronic LBP sufferers.
It
> >does
> > > >say it can on ocassion change the perceived pain by the patient. A
larger
> > > >study and I would suggest more of the same, may give increased
> >generisable
> > > >reliability.
> > > >
> > > >The beauty of this type of research is that it mimics the therapeutic
> > > >processes of assessment and treatment closely and allows for each
case to
> >be
> > > >scrutinised in greater detail with many variables being measured at
once.
> >I
> > > >feel this is a more holistic way of researching as opposed to the
> >randomised
> > > >controlled attempts to make each individual case, identical; people
as we
> > > >know are not like that. The averaging of extreme variables may hide
> >serious
> > > >flaws in treatments. Perhaps if what we did made drug companies lots
of
> > > >money as opposed to saving health agencies these costs, we might get
more
> > > >research assistance and less organised critism.
> > > >
> > > >Hope this helps Kevin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > >From: Joseph Beatus <[log in to unmask]>
> > > >To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > > >Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 2:17 PM
> > > >Subject: Re: Connective Tissue Massage
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > --Dear Kevin: thanks for ref list. It is not clear to me how you
> > > >integrated
> > > > > the diverse studies (mostly seem anecdotal?). I'm enclosing my
e-mail,
> >if
> > > > > you prefer describing your study and results; or send the
abstract.
> > > >thanks.
> > > > > Joe
> > > > > [log in to unmask]
> > > > >
> > >
>
|