Bruce
i. That was a guess, the primary studies were three produced by Young
(primary author) and Dyson, 2 of which appeared in Ultrasound in Medicine
and Biology a high quality peer reviewed Journal.
ii. In our study, the control group received ice and sham US and the expt
group ice and US per the regime we had devised (as explained earlier).
Despite the pro US outcome of our unpublished study (1992) I very seldom
use US as I think the time required for effective insonation is impractical
in most clinical settings (d.t. time constraints) and I like you prefer to
use rehab, movement etc and things that allow the patient to take
responsibility for their problem.
However, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence for US so hopefully the
proponents/detractors will get out there and do some decent studies
comparing like with like, recording treatment parameters accurately (for
reproducibility) etc etc and then we will know - instead of flaying the
infidels who don't agree with our current dogma or 'flavour of the month'
paradigm
dave r
dave riddell
Subject: Re: ultrasound (one more time)
> Dave
>
> The authors of the Phys Ther reviews claim that there is flawed
> methodologies behind the Dyson study, and claims that the thermal and non
> thermal effects of US can be separated in vivo. Don't take my word for it
> though, read it.
>
> It would be interesting to see studies that compare US treatment to:
> -sham US
> -a clinic and home program of ice and heat
> -a control.
>
> My opinion is obviously that ice and heat work just as effectively, and
are
> more affordable and empowering for clients, even if they disempower
physios.
>
|