Lynda,
good point there... in fact, you just reminded me of my third year lectures
on contraindications of U/S, and one of them of fractures or acute injuries.
If the U/S has no physiological effects, why then has these been
contraindicated?? Where they simply hypothosized??
Henry***
>From: Lynda Bennett <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: - for physiotherapists in education and practice
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Ultrasound
>Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 09:19:40 +0000
>
>It occurs to me, that if a neurologist states that the US could cause harm,
>then it MUST in fact do something i.e. it can not therefore be of no
>clinical effect. Also, if it can cause harm, then by this same action might
>it not be beneficial if used at a beneficial dosage / protocol?
>Lynda
>Sydney, Australia
>
>
>>Henry
>>
>>One of the 2 tests with positive results (calcific tendonitis) was
>>contradicted by one of the excluded tests. This excluded study was not
>>included in the review because it did not have a placebo group, only
>>experimental and control groups. The lit review states there was no
>>difference between US and control group results in this excluded review.
>>
>>The only study supporting US according to the review's criteria, was the
>>carpal tunnel syndrome treatment. However, it is also noted that there is
>>a
>>high incidence of relapse, and the a neurologist warned US directly over
>>an
>>inflammed median nerve could damage it further.
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
|