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]
> > >
>
|