 |
 |
Kevin: Did you use a VAS for duration and frequency or just for intensity? If you didn't use a VAS for duration and frequency, did you ask questions--Do you have pain at night? How many hours?, etc? How did you measure the drawing--did you use a BIG picture of only the shoulder girdle area? I am interested in doing more clinical measures and am looking for KISS (keep it simple stupid) methodologies. Herb At 03:01 PM 12/10/00 +0000, you wrote: >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] > > > > > >