Re: Craniosacral therapy

RehabEdge Physical Therapy Forum

Forums Register Login Forgot Login? My Profile
My Subscription My Forums Photo Gallery Member List
Search Calendars FAQ Ticket List Log Out

Re: Craniosacral therapy

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [RehabEdge Forum] >> Open Forum >> Re: Craniosacral therapy

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Re: Craniosacral therapy - September 20, 2006 8:01:00 AM

proud

Posts: 944
Joined: March 22, 2006
Status: offline

Karie,

So essentially no proof. So should we be doing it?

(in reply to vt2c1ms)

Post #: 61

Re: Craniosacral therapy - September 20, 2006 8:06:00 AM

Jon Newman

Posts: 1709
Joined: April 24, 2004
From: Amherst, WI
Status: offline

According to Leslie Portney and Mary Watkins in their book "Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice", they say this about theory testing (p. 23)

[QUOTE] When we speak of testing a theory, we should realize that a theory itself is not testable. The validity of a theory is derived through the empirical testing of hypotheses that are deduced from it and from observation for the phenomenon the theory describes. The hypotheses predict the relationships of variables included in the theory. The results of research will demonstrate certain facts, which will either support or not support the hypothesis. If the hypothesis is supported, the theory from which it was deduced is also supported.
When we compare the outcomes of individual research studies with predicted outcomes, we are always aware of the potential for disconfirmation of the underlying theory. In essence, the more that research does not disconfirm a theory, the more the theory is supported. This may sound backward, but in actuality we can never "prove" or "confirm" a theory. We can only demonstrate that a theoretical premise does not hold true in a specific situation.[/QUOTE]

_____________________________

[URL=http://www.sonymusic.com/clips/selection/30/064887/064887_03_03_30.wav]Evidence[/URL]

(in reply to vt2c1ms)

Post #: 62

Re: Craniosacral therapy - September 20, 2006 8:20:00 AM

proud

Posts: 944
Joined: March 22, 2006
Status: offline

Jon,

This is true. I just feel a higher standard is required, otherwise we could all come up with funny theories and apply them on patients. We are professionals who have patients entrust us to uphold that standard.

(in reply to vt2c1ms)

Post #: 63

Re: Craniosacral therapy - September 20, 2006 8:22:00 AM

Karie

Posts: 107
Joined: August 14, 2006
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline

Proud,
When clinically effective, I will continue. The mechanism of why is the question, not if for me. As Junction 13 has intelligently pointed out the research being done is not satisfactory, so therefore, it does not disprove or prove secondary to Upledger's research of his theory. The problems inherent in many research designs and methods is why research alone is not the "only" reason we use to decide treatment. All of us need to get more involved in research and get better at designing the methodoloy that is employed for credible studies. It is very important, but as clinicians we employ many other skills and judgements, one being experience of results utilizing a technique, to decide our process of treatment. The critical questions are 1. Am I harming the patient...no...2. Am I achieving therapeutic goals...yes...3. Continue, yes or no...My answer for CST is yes based on the previous 2 questions. The theory why it works may be totally different than what I was trained to believe and I am researching that as of now, but discontinue, I can't ethically do that when it achieves such significant results in my clinic.
You have your opinion Proud, and you have it going on many threads...With respect, this is the last time I will address your thoughts because I know you have not even begun to read any of Upledgers numerous cited references to come from a background of knowledge to critically discuss this issue as others I have talked with on this forum and privately since.

(in reply to vt2c1ms)

Post #: 64

Re: Craniosacral therapy - September 20, 2006 8:32:00 AM

proud

Posts: 944
Joined: March 22, 2006
Status: offline

Karie,

I agree methodology of research is important. Have you read my critical post on a recent RCT?

And I agree that it is difficult to run trials to assess a theory. However Karie, and this is not a pointed question, do you not think that by now, CST could have produced a single RCT on the technique?

Similiar to the recent one that looked at acupuncture compared to sham for OA knee pain?

(in reply to vt2c1ms)

Post #: 65

Re: Craniosacral therapy - September 20, 2006 8:43:00 AM

Jon Newman

Posts: 1709
Joined: April 24, 2004
From: Amherst, WI
Status: offline

CST suffers from the fact that there isn't just a particular situation in which the theoretical premise does not hold true, there are many. As such people practicing this way are not in fact performing CST as is spelled out. Karie, your stick in the water metaphor is a bit shaky. If the body were simply one continuous substance such that a disturbance someplace would produce a predictable result then you might have something. However, it would seem that pulses traveling through the body would more likely be traveling in a swamp with logs, sticks, cattails, and a variety of particulates suspended in the medium. In other words the ability to "read" the wave forms would be essentially chaotic. This of course assumes that there is some sort of pulse to begin with that is separate from the mechanical affects of our muscles and representative of a particular state of health.

Proud, what higher sort of standard are you talking about? Aren't they simply describing one of the ways scientists come to know about things?

_____________________________

[URL=http://www.sonymusic.com/clips/selection/30/064887/064887_03_03_30.wav]Evidence[/URL]

(in reply to vt2c1ms)

Post #: 66

Re: Craniosacral therapy - September 20, 2006 9:11:00 AM

proud

Posts: 944
Joined: March 22, 2006
Status: offline

Jon,

I am not quite sure what you mean. I suppose what I mean by that is as professionals, I do not think it is responsible to perform a treatment that not only has shady theoretical constructs, but also lacks but a single study to suggest it works over sham...

(in reply to vt2c1ms)

Post #: 67

Re: Craniosacral therapy - September 20, 2006 9:21:00 AM

dfjpt

Posts: 238
Joined: April 9, 2006
Status: offline

Before anyone wastes any more time and research money trying to find the elusive cranial sacral pulse from the POV of propping up/trying to "prove" a dubious idea that such a pulse or rythm even exists in the first place, due to someone's perceptual fantasy (who knows what they might have been smoking at the time?), I'd like to see Occam's Chainsaw applied and the more superficial/sensitive signalling layers of nervous system as a possible confounding factor ruled out.

Until then, I'll go with the greater likelihood, and more valid construct, that palpators are palpating motor outflow that is much more superficial (either blood flow variations in skin, or actual striated muscle moving intrinsically) than that people can actually feel some pulse in some deep and small pool of fluid that is buried under several layers of dynamically moving mesoderm that continously reacts to input through skin receptors with different (hopefully more desireable, less painful) motor output.

(in reply to vt2c1ms)

Post #: 68

Re: Craniosacral therapy - September 20, 2006 5:44:00 PM