R Lüdtke1, B Kunz, N Seeber, J Ring. 1. Karl und Veronica Carstens-Stiftung, Essen, Germany. r.luedtke@carstens-stiftung.de
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the test-retest-reliability and validity of the Health Kinesiology muscle test. PATIENTS: Seven patients with clinically and allergologically confirmed wasp venom allergy. DESIGN: Four Health Kinesiology-examiners tested each patient in a random order for 10 verum and 10 placebo bottles. All examiners used the anterior deltoid as indicator muscle. Patients and examiners were completely blinded. OUTCOME MEASURES: Weak muscle holds were rated as 'sensitivity' towards the test substance, stable holding as normal (not sensitive). RESULTS: An overall kappa of 0.03 (95%-CI: -0.02-0.07) indicates the test is not reliable. Individual kappas do not substantially vary from examiner to examiner. Sensitivity and specificity were estimated at 40% and 60%. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the use of Health Kinesiology as a diagnostic tool is not more useful than random guessing. This should at least be true in patients with insect venom allergy that are tested by examiners with average skills.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To assess the test-retest-reliability and validity of the Health Kinesiology muscle test. PATIENTS: Seven patients with clinically and allergologically confirmed wasp venom allergy. DESIGN: Four Health Kinesiology-examiners tested each patient in a random order for 10 verum and 10 placebo bottles. All examiners used the anterior deltoid as indicator muscle. Patients and examiners were completely blinded. OUTCOME MEASURES: Weak muscle holds were rated as 'sensitivity' towards the test substance, stable holding as normal (not sensitive). RESULTS: An overall kappa of 0.03 (95%-CI: -0.02-0.07) indicates the test is not reliable. Individual kappas do not substantially vary from examiner to examiner. Sensitivity and specificity were estimated at 40% and 60%. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the use of Health Kinesiology as a diagnostic tool is not more useful than random guessing. This should at least be true in patients with insect venom allergy that are tested by examiners with average skills.
Authors: Ignacio J Ansotegui; Giovanni Melioli; Giorgio Walter Canonica; Luis Caraballo; Elisa Villa; Motohiro Ebisawa; Giovanni Passalacqua; Eleonora Savi; Didier Ebo; R Maximiliano Gómez; Olga Luengo Sánchez; John J Oppenheimer; Erika Jensen-Jarolim; David A Fischer; Tari Haahtela; Martti Antila; Jean J Bousquet; Victoria Cardona; Wen Chin Chiang; Pascal M Demoly; Lawrence M DuBuske; Marta Ferrer Puga; Roy Gerth van Wijk; Sandra Nora González Díaz; Alexei Gonzalez-Estrada; Edgardo Jares; Ayse Füsun Kalpaklioğlu; Luciana Kase Tanno; Marek L Kowalski; Dennis K Ledford; Olga Patricia Monge Ortega; Mário Morais Almeida; Oliver Pfaar; Lars K Poulsen; Ruby Pawankar; Harald E Renz; Antonino G Romano; Nelson A Rosário Filho; Lanny Rosenwasser; Mario A Sánchez Borges; Enrico Scala; Gian-Enrico Senna; Juan Carlos Sisul; Mimi L K Tang; Bernard Yu-Hor Thong; Rudolf Valenta; Robert A Wood; Torsten Zuberbier Journal: World Allergy Organ J Date: 2020-02-25 Impact factor: 4.084
Authors: John J Triano; Brian Budgell; Angela Bagnulo; Benjamin Roffey; Thomas Bergmann; Robert Cooperstein; Brian Gleberzon; Christopher Good; Jacquelyn Perron; Rodger Tepe Journal: Chiropr Man Therap Date: 2013-10-21