It is if you believe this study that just appeared in prepublication. However, yet again the editorial and peer review processes let us down as that is not the case at all. The authors and the peer reviewers superficial understanding of the issues have led them to conclusions that are not substantiated and should not have made it to publication.
Author Archives: Craig Payne
If you are going to comment on research studies in social media…
…please read and understand the study first. Don’t embarrass yourself by just commentting based on the what you think the title of the study means.
For example, this recent study was published. The study investigated outcomes of clubfoot treatment to see if immediate or delayed treatment affected outcomes. Of the 176 cases they reviewed, the age at presentation did not affect the outcome (except for the issue of cast slippage).
Reflexology Clinical Trials
Reflexology is just made up mythology. There is no known physiological link between parts of the foot and organ systems in the body, let alone any involvement in these disease processes. Every single meta-analysis and systematic review of all the clinical trials of it have concluded the same thing: it does not work. It is no better than a placebo. The only clinical trials that show it works are in low quality, low or no impact factor journals and have serious methodological flaws. The most common methodological flaw is the lack of a control group. Most of those studies were not even on reflexology, but were on nothing more than a damn good foot massage. Everyone, regardless of what medical condition they have is probably going to feel better after a damn good foot massage!
Restiffic Foot Wrap for Restless Legs Syndrome
Restless legs syndrome is a common problem, too often without a satisfactory solution. Because of this, there is plenty of bad advice being given and many different treatments options available; many of which are underpinned by testimonials and anecdotes and with poor or no science or data. When extraordinary claims are made, then extraordinary evidence is needed to support the claims.
Within group vs between group analysis of trial data and the way too many studies get it wrong
In my takedown analysis in the last post of two papers on morton’s neuroma, I pointed out that both studies were analysed wrong and that this should have been pulled up in the pre-publication peer review process and it wasn’t. Also, in my other blog I pulled up a number of studies on the same issue.
JAPMA lets us down again: Shock wave for mortons neuroma
Back in 2009, the Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association (JAPMA) published this impressively titled study: Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy for Interdigital Neuroma: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind Trial that found:
The treatment group showed a significant difference before and after extracorporeal shockwave therapy (P < .0001). The sham group did not have a significant difference after 12 weeks (P = .1218).
and as such concluded
Conclusions: Extracorporeal shockwave therapy is a possible alternative to surgical excision for Morton’s neuroma