Hypothesis:
Ultrasound is able to clean out by mechanical force substances in the Tissue
that take part in Inflamatory Processeses
Ultrasound stimulates the tissue-cells to produce substances that inhibit
Inflamation
Ultrasound stimulates the tissue-cells to produce substances that allow a
better lubracation between the Tissues
ETC.
Any other thoughts?
Marco
----- Original Message -----
From: k.reese <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: still no evidence for therapeutic ultrasound
> Dear Bruce
>
> I applaud your healthy sceptism and hold the majority of the same
opinions,
> with a few exceptions.
>
> We know ultrasound does something as when you introduce an energy to a
> substance it changes it. I know you have not said this but I have heard
> people say US does nothing and this is clearly untrue. Its therapeutic
> benefits are the debating issue.
>
> Your call for a psychosocial approach is commendable, but you must realise
> that these academic disciplines have championed other research methods
other
> than the flawed RCT, when dealing with human research. Therefore your use
of
> the word significant must be defined. Are you meaning the 5%
> statisical or clinical significance?. As I have said many times I would
> never discard a treatment with only a 94% efficacy and of course this
would
> not be statistically significant.
>
> Current EBM is driven by the medics and I feel their clinical reasoning is
> inferior to our own. In these incidences lets not jump on their bandwagon
> and make RCT God. They will catch up eventually
>
> I am not a lover of US but while the issue remains so cloudy we must not
> dismiss so easily other valuable sources of evidence, ie clinical
> experience. After all one persons clinical experience and having the
bravery
> to voice it has topplied large RCT's and saved many thousands from
deformity
> and pain. Phalidamide (I can never spell that word)
>
> As a final point Barretts comment with regard to the incidental nature of
US
> and recovery is true of every modality we use. I am more certain of the
> power of a treatment when it elicits a beneficial change in the more
> chronic. Ie the more acute an injury the more likely the recovery is
despite
> PT.
>
> Just some thoughts Kevin Reese PT UK
>
> ps in the cricket the Aussies may have the weather god, but we have the
> groin strain god. Slater appears to have done a Steve Waugh. If US is an
> uneffective treatment lets hope both are getting it from the team physio.
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bruce- Australia <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 6:55 AM
> Subject: still no evidence for therapeutic ultrasound
>
>
> > Some of you might remember an emotive attack last year upon me by
> > proponents of therapeutic ultrasound.
> >
> > I have just completed a lit review via cinahl, medline, and current
> > contents. And the consensus is still, as I stated last year, that
> > therapeutic ultrasound has no significant invivo evidence via RCTs.
> >
> > Further, dosage levels, frequencies, and durations are still being
plucked
> > out of thin air.
> >
|