Applied Kinesiology
***Disclaimer: This blog is not meant to be used as legal or medical
advice. It is written as my person perspective on how medical
professionals could blend western medicine with other modalities***
This has been an interesting topic to research. Applied Kinesiology (AK) is a diagnostic practice of testing a patient’s ability to hold a limb still against pressure applied by the practitioner. It is used to detect physical, nutritional, or emotional deficits. It is most frequently used by chiropractors, but is also used by other practitioners. Often it is used as a way of questioning the body about imbalances that the patient may not be consciously aware of.
I personally go to a chiropractor who uses muscle testing to evaluate
his patients. I trust him and his methods, and I feel like his
diagnostic ability is accurate. I haven’t seen him use muscle testing
to evaluate nutrition or emotional status, only the physical parts of
the spine that he might adjust. So I feel some vested interest in the
subject.
Unfortunately, a lot of the evidence is conflicting. Some studies show that consistency between practitioners and over time with the same practitioner can vary greatly. There are studies that demonstrate accuracy no better than random chance. Other studies indicate high diagnostic ability and consistency. Two issues stand out to me as confounding factors. First of all, this is a diagnostic tool, not an intervention. It involves the practitioner manipulating the patient in very specific ways to come to a conclusion. Because of the personal nature of the practice, it seems like it would be very difficult to create a strong scientific test. How do you blind the patient and practitioner? How do you create a placebo? Is it possible to have a double blind, placebo controlled trial on AK? Secondly, because AK involves the physical ability of the practitioner, there is likely a wide variety of ability, methods, and uses. By testing one or even a small group of AK practitioners, how do I know I’ve tested people who truly represent the practice? How rigorous is the training?
For example, I found one trial that seemed on the surface to be well designed. It was a trial to demonstrate the efficacy of a specific kind of AK called Professional Kinesiology Practice on non-specific lower back pain. The study had 3 arms: AK, sham AK, and waiting group. The patients were blinded, and in fact one of the exclusion criteria was previous exposure to AK. The results of the trial indicate that pain worsened in the group who received no treatment, but improved in both AK and sham arms. Also, the improvements were greater in the true AK compared to the sham AK. This seems to demonstrate that AK is safe and effective compared to no treatment or sham treatment. However, there are some problems with the trial. For one, the researcher was the exclusive practitioner performing the diagnosis and interventions – this may have introduced bias into the study. It was also impossible to blind the practitioner which likely introduced more bias. The initial calculations for power determined they would need 144 participants for a reasonable margin of error (to ensure they really saw what they think they saw); however, they only managed to enroll 55 participants. We need to seriously question their results due to lack of power to detect error.
Because of the evidence, I’m afraid I cannot endorse the use of applied kinesiology at this time. As a health care practitioner, I would not advise a patient to seek out an AK practitioner. However, if a patient were to bring up that they wanted to pursue AK as a method, I would recommend they not abandon their current prescribed therapy. But if they wish to add to their current therapy and they feel like the cost would not be a burden, I would encourage them to try. Some patients do seem to benefit from this method, but only anecdotally.
Because this is more of a “buyer beware” modality, I would not bother trying to find practitioners in your area. But if a patient asks you to help find one, you can always direct them to the International College of Applied Kinesiology at http://www.icakusa.com/
Reference:
Eardley S, Brien S, Little P, Prescott P, Lewith G: Professional Kinesiology Practice for Chronic Low Back Pain: Single-Blind, Randomised Controlled Pilot Study. Forsch Komplementmed 2013;20:180-188.
This has been an interesting topic to research. Applied Kinesiology (AK) is a diagnostic practice of testing a patient’s ability to hold a limb still against pressure applied by the practitioner. It is used to detect physical, nutritional, or emotional deficits. It is most frequently used by chiropractors, but is also used by other practitioners. Often it is used as a way of questioning the body about imbalances that the patient may not be consciously aware of.
Unfortunately, a lot of the evidence is conflicting. Some studies show that consistency between practitioners and over time with the same practitioner can vary greatly. There are studies that demonstrate accuracy no better than random chance. Other studies indicate high diagnostic ability and consistency. Two issues stand out to me as confounding factors. First of all, this is a diagnostic tool, not an intervention. It involves the practitioner manipulating the patient in very specific ways to come to a conclusion. Because of the personal nature of the practice, it seems like it would be very difficult to create a strong scientific test. How do you blind the patient and practitioner? How do you create a placebo? Is it possible to have a double blind, placebo controlled trial on AK? Secondly, because AK involves the physical ability of the practitioner, there is likely a wide variety of ability, methods, and uses. By testing one or even a small group of AK practitioners, how do I know I’ve tested people who truly represent the practice? How rigorous is the training?
For example, I found one trial that seemed on the surface to be well designed. It was a trial to demonstrate the efficacy of a specific kind of AK called Professional Kinesiology Practice on non-specific lower back pain. The study had 3 arms: AK, sham AK, and waiting group. The patients were blinded, and in fact one of the exclusion criteria was previous exposure to AK. The results of the trial indicate that pain worsened in the group who received no treatment, but improved in both AK and sham arms. Also, the improvements were greater in the true AK compared to the sham AK. This seems to demonstrate that AK is safe and effective compared to no treatment or sham treatment. However, there are some problems with the trial. For one, the researcher was the exclusive practitioner performing the diagnosis and interventions – this may have introduced bias into the study. It was also impossible to blind the practitioner which likely introduced more bias. The initial calculations for power determined they would need 144 participants for a reasonable margin of error (to ensure they really saw what they think they saw); however, they only managed to enroll 55 participants. We need to seriously question their results due to lack of power to detect error.
Because of the evidence, I’m afraid I cannot endorse the use of applied kinesiology at this time. As a health care practitioner, I would not advise a patient to seek out an AK practitioner. However, if a patient were to bring up that they wanted to pursue AK as a method, I would recommend they not abandon their current prescribed therapy. But if they wish to add to their current therapy and they feel like the cost would not be a burden, I would encourage them to try. Some patients do seem to benefit from this method, but only anecdotally.
Because this is more of a “buyer beware” modality, I would not bother trying to find practitioners in your area. But if a patient asks you to help find one, you can always direct them to the International College of Applied Kinesiology at http://www.icakusa.com/
Reference:
Eardley S, Brien S, Little P, Prescott P, Lewith G: Professional Kinesiology Practice for Chronic Low Back Pain: Single-Blind, Randomised Controlled Pilot Study. Forsch Komplementmed 2013;20:180-188.
Comments
Post a Comment