EditorialHow to evaluate manual therapy: value and pitfalls of randomized clinical trials
References (0)
Cited by (21)
Five challenges for manual therapies trials with placebo controls: A proposal
2022, International Journal of Osteopathic MedicineResults of a feasibility randomised controlled trial of osteopathy on neck-shoulder pain in computer users
2022, Complementary Therapies in Clinical PracticeOvercoming placebo-related challenges in manual therapy trials: The ‘whats and hows’ and the ‘touch equality assumption’ proposals
2021, International Journal of Osteopathic MedicineReporting results in manual therapy clinical trials: A need for improvement
2021, International Journal of Osteopathic MedicineSample size, study length, and inadequate controls were the most common self-acknowledged limitations in manual therapy trials: A methodological review
2021, Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyCitation Excerpt :Within this category, the main reason stated by authors (41%) pointed to placebo or sham interventions not being optimal for the comparison. In the field of MT (or any discipline with a high interaction between patients and care providers), the use of placebos or sham interventions is highly influenced by the therapist who delivers the treatment [26,33]. Thus, in manual sham RCTs, isolating the “active ingredient” from other effects can be very complex [34].
A methodological review revealed that reporting of trials in manual therapy has not improved over time
2020, Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyCitation Excerpt :In almost 60% of the analyzed MT trials, information on sample size calculation was not available, with no differences between the pre-C and post-C groups. MT trials are often based on small samples, which, in turn, usually results in type II error caused by low statistical power [33]; note that only 33% of our sample had n ≥ 100 (38% pre-C and 28% post-C). The mean number of participants was 118, and the comparison between pre-C and post-C groups points to a falling trend in the median sample size.