|
|
Review Article
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Review Article - February 14, 2006 2:38:00 AM
|
|
|
Dr.Wagner
Posts: 1237
Joined: January 24, 2003
From: Indianapolis
Status: offline
|
I thought I would post the article for review on a separate topic.
Remember, critically appraise, did they prove their point? Easily validated etc?
There are alot of errors in this article and can easily be dissected, but it is also very interesting as well.
http://www.jaoa.org/cgi/content/full/105/2/57
PDF http://www.jaoa.org/cgi/reprint/105/2/57.pdf
_____________________________
Dr. Wagner DO
Moderator of Medical Complexity Forum
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Review Article - February 16, 2006 9:36:00 AM
|
|
|
Sebastian Asselbergs
Posts: 1106
Joined: September 29, 1999
From: Barrie, Canada
Status: offline
|
Sorry, Doc Wagner. did not read the whole thing yet, but a scan of the article immediately brought the following to mind: They only proved their point that one "hands-on" visit is somewhat equal to one IM ketorolac. Not OMT in particular....
_____________________________
Mundi vult decipi
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Review Article - February 17, 2006 8:31:00 AM
|
|
|
Dr.Wagner
Posts: 1237
Joined: January 24, 2003
From: Indianapolis
Status: offline
|
Lets review the article by Monday 20th
_____________________________
Dr. Wagner DO
Moderator of Medical Complexity Forum
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Review Article - February 21, 2006 2:19:00 PM
|
|
|
Dr.Wagner
Posts: 1237
Joined: January 24, 2003
From: Indianapolis
Status: offline
|
SOOOOO
What do people THINK about the article?
I will dissect it if you wish.
Do you like the comparisons used? What is the gold standard of treatment? IS the article reproducible? Is the sample size appropriate? Was the population random? What was the control?
_____________________________
Dr. Wagner DO
Moderator of Medical Complexity Forum
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Review Article - March 13, 2006 4:31:00 PM
|
|
|
Shill
Posts: 1056
Joined: February 13, 2003
From: Madison WI USA
Status: offline
|
Well,
I dont think that this is all that outstanding of a study. The OMT description of treatment is too vague, due to the inclusion of "muscle energy", and "various soft tissue techniques". Specifics would be nice, as to the intent of said techniques, as without them, it is not reproducible. Gold standard? Ha, thats a good one! Manipulation is a hot topic, but was only part of the treatment. Maybe it was the part that made the difference, but maybe it was the nice massage that they got.
Just my thoughts.
Steve
_____________________________
Steve Hill PT
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Review Article - March 13, 2006 5:41:00 PM
|
|
|
Zeke W.
Posts: 14
Joined: March 12, 2006
Status: offline
|
huh
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
0.078
|
Printable Version
