S Eardley1, S Brien, P Little, P Prescott, G Lewith. 1. Complementary and Integrative Medicine Research, Primary Medical Care, University of Southampton, UK. s.eardley@soton.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Chronic low back pain is a highly prevalent condition with no definitive treatment. Professional Kinesiology Practice (PKP) is a little known complementary medicine technique using non-standard muscle testing; no previous effectiveness studies have been performed. METHODS: This is an exploratory, pragmatic single-blind, 3-arm randomised sham-controlled pilot study with waiting list control (WLC) in private practice UK (2007-2009). 70 participants scoring ≥4 on the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) were randomised to real or sham PKP receiving 1 treatment weekly for 5 weeks or a WLC. WLC's were re-randomised to real or sham after 6 weeks. The main outcome was a change in RMDQ from baseline to end of 5 weeks of real or sham PKP. RESULTS: With an effect size of 0.7 real treatment was significantly different to sham (mean difference RMDQ score = -2.9, p = 0.04, 95% CI -5.8 to -0.1). Compared to WLC, real and sham groups had significant RMDQ improvements (real -9.0, p < 0.01, 95% CI -12.1 to -5.8; effect size 2.1; sham -6.1, p < 0.01, 95% CI -9.1 to -3.1; effect size 1.4). Practitioner empathy (CARE) and patient enablement (PEI) did not predict outcome; holistic health beliefs (CAMBI) did, though. The sham treatment appeared credible; patients did not guess treatment allocation. 3 patients reported minor adverse reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Real treatment was significantly different from sham demonstrating a moderate specific effect of PKP; both were better than WLC indicating a substantial non-specific and contextual treatment effect. A larger definitive study would be appropriate with nested qualitative work to help understand the mechanisms involved in PKP.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain is a highly prevalent condition with no definitive treatment. Professional Kinesiology Practice (PKP) is a little known complementary medicine technique using non-standard muscle testing; no previous effectiveness studies have been performed. METHODS: This is an exploratory, pragmatic single-blind, 3-arm randomised sham-controlled pilot study with waiting list control (WLC) in private practice UK (2007-2009). 70 participants scoring ≥4 on the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) were randomised to real or sham PKP receiving 1 treatment weekly for 5 weeks or a WLC. WLC's were re-randomised to real or sham after 6 weeks. The main outcome was a change in RMDQ from baseline to end of 5 weeks of real or sham PKP. RESULTS: With an effect size of 0.7 real treatment was significantly different to sham (mean difference RMDQ score = -2.9, p = 0.04, 95% CI -5.8 to -0.1). Compared to WLC, real and sham groups had significant RMDQ improvements (real -9.0, p < 0.01, 95% CI -12.1 to -5.8; effect size 2.1; sham -6.1, p < 0.01, 95% CI -9.1 to -3.1; effect size 1.4). Practitioner empathy (CARE) and patient enablement (PEI) did not predict outcome; holistic health beliefs (CAMBI) did, though. The sham treatment appeared credible; patients did not guess treatment allocation. 3 patients reported minor adverse reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Real treatment was significantly different from sham demonstrating a moderate specific effect of PKP; both were better than WLC indicating a substantial non-specific and contextual treatment effect. A larger definitive study would be appropriate with nested qualitative work to help understand the mechanisms involved in PKP.
Authors: A Molgaard Nielsen; J Hartvigsen; A Kongsted; B Öberg; P Enthoven; A Abbott; H H Lauridsen Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2021-04-09 Impact factor: 3.186