OMG.....EVIDENCE for OMM (in the works)!!!!

[FutureDoctorrrr]

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-08-hands-on-approach-patients-pulmonary-disease.html

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[sylvanthus]

Heh, on my OMT rotation I read an article showing that OMT actually worsened lung function in COPD patients. But, whatevs, maybe this will magically show the opposite.

 

[Ghost22]

You make it sound like it's never, ever been proven to be remotely useful.

 

[sylvanthus]

Proven is a pretty strong word. Look at the research, very little has been proven. Youd be surprised at the glaring flaws in many many studies. No control, experimental group not compared to control, researchers themselves doing measurements and unblinded, extremely small sample size, measuring 20 things and saying hey look one has a p value less than .05!, inappropriate conclusions made that the data doesnt support, etc etc etc. I spent a month looking at these studies. But dont take mine or your instructors word, actually analyze it yourself sometime.

Also in before " but but our OMT class showed us research and said its valid!"

 

[oms2]

the way i look at it, like cancer, copd is a death sentence. if there is anything inexpensive people can do to make patients feel better, i'd say go ahead.

 

[Perrotfish]

the way i look at it, like cancer, copd is a death sentence. if there is anything inexpensive people can do to make patients feel better, i'd say go ahead.

The way I look at it, desperate people will pay for anything. That's why we have strict ethical rules against selling placebos to keep physicians from robbing the terminally ill of their children's inheritances.

 

[K31]

It seems to me they're putting the cart before the horse, trying to find a biomarker before they have shown there is actually a benefit. At least they're only wasting AOA money instead of federal funds (at least for now).

And as Sylvanthus said, this seems to be an example of if you throw enough **** against a wall, something will stick. Do enough trials, eventually something non-significant will show a significant difference by random chance. It's the typical refuge of proponents of ineffective treatments, aided by publication bias.

 

[Giemsa]

Heh, on my OMT rotation I read an article showing that OMT actually worsened lung function in COPD patients.

http://www.jaoa.org/content/108/5/251.full
http://www.om-pc.com/content/3/1/9/

 

[facetguy]

It seems to me they're putting the cart before the horse, trying to find a biomarker before they have shown there is actually a benefit. At least they're only wasting AOA money instead of federal funds (at least for now).

And as Sylvanthus said, this seems to be an example of if you throw enough **** against a wall, something will stick. Do enough trials, eventually something non-significant will show a significant difference by random chance. It's the typical refuge of proponents of ineffective treatments, aided by publication bias.

Have there really been that many studies? If anything, there's a lack of studies, no?

 

[sylvanthus]

http://www.jaoa.org/content/108/5/251.full
http://www.om-pc.com/content/3/1/9/

Thanks dude.

 

[toxicwombat]

The way I look at it, desperate people will pay for anything. That's why we have strict ethical rules against selling placebos to keep physicians from robbing the terminally ill of their children's inheritances.

Very well said.