Frank,
I understand your point, but I guess where I am coming from is that the
majority of RCT's on U/S show significantly no effect. However, we have to
ask ourselves the question, why are there a small proportion of RCT's that
do show some significant effect if it doesn't work?? Is there something that
we have forgotten to take into account between these studies?? I think this
is an important question to ask ourselves, and not just take the article for
what it has to say.
>There is a big difference between matters not having been proven to work,
>and matters having been proven to not work. The first we can still use
>(things do not have to be proven to work, for them to work), but the second
>is not exactly a credit to our profession, in my opinion.
***I sort of agree with you. But I think there is also a difference between
proof and effectiveness. U/S has been proven not to have an true effect in
human subjects according to this study, but some time it does seem to have
an effect. Best example is subacute tennis elbow - U/S 1.5 W/cm2 and retest
their grip strength - it is amazing the improvement(this and subacute ankle
sprains are about the only time I use the U/S). I would be cautious in
saying that something that has not been proven to work we can still use -
things such as Bowen Therapy and reiki have not undergone strict RCT
studies, but should we still use this?? (Now I will probably have these
therapists lash out something at me :o
As I said, I am not tending towards or against U/S. I went through a uni
where a whole year was devoted to electrotherapy (and I hated it!). I just
think we have to be selective, like all techniques, in their application.
Very winding but sunny day 15 degrees in early morning Brisbane,
Henry***
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
|