The C.A.M. Report
Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Fair, Balanced, and to the Point
  • About this web log

    This blog is intended as an objective and dispassionate source of information on the latest CAM research. Since my background is in pharmacy and allopathic medicine, I view all CAM as advancing through the development pipeline to eventually become integrated into mainstream medical practice. Some will succeed while others fail. But all are treated fairly here.

  • About the author

    John Russo, Jr., PharmD, is president of The MedCom Resource, Inc. Previously, he was senior vice president of medical communications at www.Vicus.com, a complementary and alternative medicine website.

  • Common sense considerations

    The material on this weblog is for informational purposes. It is not medical advice or counsel. Be smart, consult your health professional before using CAM.

  • Support this site

    If you found the information here helpful, please consider supporting this site.If you found the information here helpful, please consider supporting this site.

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    Reviewing the evidence for kinesiology

    Kinesiology is the study of the mechanics of body movements.

    Now, researchers from the University of Southampton in the UK have reviewed published studies for evidence supporting its diagnostic and complementary discipline.

    First, the details.

    • The medical literature was searched to learn the following.
      • Diagnostic accuracy of kinesiology
      • Evidence for its therapeutic effectiveness
      • Quality of relevant studies.
    • The following tools were used to evaluate the studies.
      • Quality assessment tools for studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews (QUADAS) and the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Studies (STARD).
      • Clinical studies were analyzed for methodological quality using the JADAD scale and for quality of reporting using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT).

    And, the results.

    • The design and implementation of the 22 relevant studies was poor.
      • QUADAS scored 1-11 out of a possible 14
      • STARD scores were between 6-13 out of 25
      • JADAD scores were all 0 out of 5
      • CONSORT 4-6 out of 22.

    The bottom line?
    The authors concluded that the studies were of such poor quality they were “unable to answer any of our research questions.”

    “We should remember that lack of evidence of effect is not necessarily evidence of lack of effect.” Matthew Anderson, MD

    8/13/08 21:59 JR

    Leave a Comment

    You must be logged in to post a comment.