Effect of chiropractic treatment of infant colic "Muscular skeletal pain and disorders
In October 2012, a pragmatic randomized trial regarding chiropractic treatment for infant colic published in JMPT. The conclusion was that chiropractic manual therapy reduced crying in infants raspberry bulbs with colic compared with the control, and if the parents knew about the infant received treatment or not, had no effect on the result. Below I have and chiropractor Anna Allen posted a slightly raspberry bulbs longer description of the study (which we both participated in that clinicians, in terms of potential conflicts of interest) as well as strengths and weaknesses.
In conclusion, The Findings of this study Demonstrate a greater decline in crying behavior in colicky infants treated with chiropractic manual therapy Compared with infants who were not treated. The Findings also Showed that knowledge of treatment by the parent did not Appear two Contribute to the observed treatment effects in this study. raspberry bulbs Thus, it is unlikely that observed treatment effect is due two bias on the part of the reporting parent (Miller et al, 2012).
The study's goal - two-fold: To evaluate the efficacy of chiropractic manual therapy (CMT) versus no treatment To assess whether parental knowledge of treatment assignment affected their reporting gråtetid.
Randomization protocol: opaque envelopes used, treats got to know the group immediately before treatment began. Computer-generated allocation sequence. Participants raspberry bulbs were randomized to one of three groups: 1: Infants treated, parents conscious. 2: Infants treated, parents umedviten. 3: Infants no treatment, parents umedviten.
Outcome Measurements: The primary outcome measures: daily infant crying (hours raspberry bulbs / day) on parent diary over 10 days - the gold standard. Secondary outcome measures: global improvement scale completed by 10 days or the end of treatment (whichever came first).
Results: Average gråtetid decreased in all three groups: 44% reduction in group 1, 51% group 2 and 19% in group three. Odds for improvement (OR), wherein clinically significant odds for improvement in gråtetid was defined as two hours or less was 8 times higher raspberry bulbs in group 2 (infants treated parental umedviten) 95% CI 1.4 to 45.0, as compared to group 3 (infants not treated, parents umedviten) at day 8 of the study, which was statistically significant. Odds of improvement was 12 times greater in group 2 95% CI 2.1 to 68.3, compared with group 3 at day 10 of the study, which was statistically significant. Odds of improvement in group 1 and 2 were not significantly different (blind vs. Unblinded to treatment groups). This means that there was no difference in gråtetid among these groups, so no bias from parents regarding the reporting of gråtetid in infants. No side effects were reported in either group. Worth mentioning that the treatment of infants raspberry bulbs is the specific light pressure applied, can not be compared to manipulation in adults, as many parents wonder this treatment takes into account that babies are not "little adults" but has physiological and anatomical important differences that affect the type of treatment.
Strengths raspberry bulbs of the study: Good randomization protocol used. Pragmatic study - similar to everyday practice, more clinically raspberry bulbs relevant for clinicians. Good description of inklusjons-/eksklusjonskriterier. I've talked about the problem that many are diagnosed infant colic, raspberry bulbs but may have very different explanations for its weeping in this post. Data Extract Ning (from gråtetid-diaries etc) made of "assessor" raspberry bulbs (assessor) who are blinded with respect raspberry bulbs to treatment group. The study wanted to address security issues in the treatment by reporting adverse events. How effective the blinding was, was also tested after treatment consultations - found to be satisfactory. Two infants not included in the final analysis - reason for this is given. The infants had the same baseline characteristics - so any difference in treatment effect is likely to be due to the treatment itself. The results adjusted for age, gender and baseline crying to assess a potential effect of confounding raspberry bulbs factors - little difference in results between untreated OR and adjusted OR, low efficacy of confounding factors. The experiment reported clinically significant improvement rather than statistically significant improvement since it is more relevant to clinical practice. The experiment discussed thoroughly study's weaknesses. Update raspberry bulbs for comment: They used no physical contact with the control group instead of say keep the baby or subsection games. This is also a weakness that was pointed out that I should mention the criticism of the study. The authors said previous studies had already shown that manual therapy could reduce crying and went out from the hypothesis that colic may be a musculoskeletal nuisance. They mention raspberry bulbs that a weakness of some other studies is that the control
In October 2012, a pragmatic randomized trial regarding chiropractic treatment for infant colic published in JMPT. The conclusion was that chiropractic manual therapy reduced crying in infants raspberry bulbs with colic compared with the control, and if the parents knew about the infant received treatment or not, had no effect on the result. Below I have and chiropractor Anna Allen posted a slightly raspberry bulbs longer description of the study (which we both participated in that clinicians, in terms of potential conflicts of interest) as well as strengths and weaknesses.
In conclusion, The Findings of this study Demonstrate a greater decline in crying behavior in colicky infants treated with chiropractic manual therapy Compared with infants who were not treated. The Findings also Showed that knowledge of treatment by the parent did not Appear two Contribute to the observed treatment effects in this study. raspberry bulbs Thus, it is unlikely that observed treatment effect is due two bias on the part of the reporting parent (Miller et al, 2012).
The study's goal - two-fold: To evaluate the efficacy of chiropractic manual therapy (CMT) versus no treatment To assess whether parental knowledge of treatment assignment affected their reporting gråtetid.
Randomization protocol: opaque envelopes used, treats got to know the group immediately before treatment began. Computer-generated allocation sequence. Participants raspberry bulbs were randomized to one of three groups: 1: Infants treated, parents conscious. 2: Infants treated, parents umedviten. 3: Infants no treatment, parents umedviten.
Outcome Measurements: The primary outcome measures: daily infant crying (hours raspberry bulbs / day) on parent diary over 10 days - the gold standard. Secondary outcome measures: global improvement scale completed by 10 days or the end of treatment (whichever came first).
Results: Average gråtetid decreased in all three groups: 44% reduction in group 1, 51% group 2 and 19% in group three. Odds for improvement (OR), wherein clinically significant odds for improvement in gråtetid was defined as two hours or less was 8 times higher raspberry bulbs in group 2 (infants treated parental umedviten) 95% CI 1.4 to 45.0, as compared to group 3 (infants not treated, parents umedviten) at day 8 of the study, which was statistically significant. Odds of improvement was 12 times greater in group 2 95% CI 2.1 to 68.3, compared with group 3 at day 10 of the study, which was statistically significant. Odds of improvement in group 1 and 2 were not significantly different (blind vs. Unblinded to treatment groups). This means that there was no difference in gråtetid among these groups, so no bias from parents regarding the reporting of gråtetid in infants. No side effects were reported in either group. Worth mentioning that the treatment of infants raspberry bulbs is the specific light pressure applied, can not be compared to manipulation in adults, as many parents wonder this treatment takes into account that babies are not "little adults" but has physiological and anatomical important differences that affect the type of treatment.
Strengths raspberry bulbs of the study: Good randomization protocol used. Pragmatic study - similar to everyday practice, more clinically raspberry bulbs relevant for clinicians. Good description of inklusjons-/eksklusjonskriterier. I've talked about the problem that many are diagnosed infant colic, raspberry bulbs but may have very different explanations for its weeping in this post. Data Extract Ning (from gråtetid-diaries etc) made of "assessor" raspberry bulbs (assessor) who are blinded with respect raspberry bulbs to treatment group. The study wanted to address security issues in the treatment by reporting adverse events. How effective the blinding was, was also tested after treatment consultations - found to be satisfactory. Two infants not included in the final analysis - reason for this is given. The infants had the same baseline characteristics - so any difference in treatment effect is likely to be due to the treatment itself. The results adjusted for age, gender and baseline crying to assess a potential effect of confounding raspberry bulbs factors - little difference in results between untreated OR and adjusted OR, low efficacy of confounding factors. The experiment reported clinically significant improvement rather than statistically significant improvement since it is more relevant to clinical practice. The experiment discussed thoroughly study's weaknesses. Update raspberry bulbs for comment: They used no physical contact with the control group instead of say keep the baby or subsection games. This is also a weakness that was pointed out that I should mention the criticism of the study. The authors said previous studies had already shown that manual therapy could reduce crying and went out from the hypothesis that colic may be a musculoskeletal nuisance. They mention raspberry bulbs that a weakness of some other studies is that the control
No comments:
Post a Comment