Comparison of bioenergetic synchronization technique and customary chiropractic care for older adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain.

Comparison of bioenergetic synchronization technique and customary chiropractic care for older adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain.
September 2006
Hawk C, Rupert RL, Colonvega M, Boyd J, Hall S.
PubMed

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the clinical outcomes of 2 approaches to chiropractic care for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Included were the approach most commonly used by doctors of chiropractic (diversified technique spinal manipulation) and a nonmanipulative mind-body approach (Bioenergetic Synchronization Technique). This clinical experiment tested the null hypothesis that there is no clinically or statistically significant difference in effect between the 2 approaches. METHODS: The study was conducted in the research clinic of the Parker College of Chiropractic. Patients were initially recruited by contacting a previously developed pool used for studies related to fall prevention in the elderly. Eighty-one patients (74 females; median age, 66 years) were enrolled and 78 (96%) completed the study. The primary end point was the end of a 3-week nontreatment interval after a 4-week treatment period. An intention-to-treat analysis was used; all patients who completed assessments were included whether or not they were compliant with the treatment protocol. A sample size of 55 per group was estimated to be necessary to detect a clinically significant (6-point) between-group difference in the Pain Disability Index (PDI). The primary outcome, the mean between-group difference between PDI scores at visit 1 and the exit visit, was tested with a 2-tailed t test for independent samples. RESULTS: Mean improvements in the PDI from visit 1 to the exit visit were 6.9 points in the Bioenergetic Synchronization Technique group (n = 40) and 6.4 in the diversified technique group (n = 38); the between-groups difference was not statistically or clinically significant (95% confidence interval, -4.7 to 5.8). CONCLUSIONS: For this particular group of patients, both groups demonstrated similar improvement scores on the PDI; the study's null hypothesis was not rejected.

Comments: 0
Votes:36