Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics
Volume 29, Issue 7 , Pages 540-549, September 2006

Comparison of Bioenergetic Synchronization Technique and Customary Chiropractic Care for Older Adults With Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain

  • Cheryl Hawk, DC, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Dean of Research, Parker Research Institute, Parker College of Chiropractic, Dallas, Tex
    • Corresponding Author InformationSubmit requests for reprints to: Cheryl Hawk, DC, PhD, Vice President of Research and Scholarship, Cleveland Chiropractic College, 6401 Rockhill Road, Kansas City, MO 64131.
  • ,
  • Ronald L. Rupert, DC

      Affiliations

    • Vice President of Research and Scholarship, Cleveland Chiropractic College, Kansas City, Mo
  • ,
  • Makasha Colonvega, DC

      Affiliations

    • Assistant Professor, Director of Research, Parker Research Institute, Parker College of Chiropractic, Dallas, Tex
  • ,
  • Jennell Boyd, DC

      Affiliations

    • Assistant Professor, Director of Research, Parker Research Institute, Parker College of Chiropractic, Dallas, Tex
  • ,
  • Stephanie Hall

      Affiliations

    • Research Assistant, Director of Research, Parker Research Institute, Parker College of Chiropractic, Dallas, Tex

Received 13 September 2005; received in revised form 17 October 2005; accepted 31 October 2005.

Abstract 

Objective

The aim of the study was to compare the clinical outcomes of 2 approaches to chiropractic care for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Included were the approach most commonly used by doctors of chiropractic (diversified technique spinal manipulation) and a nonmanipulative mind-body approach (Bioenergetic Synchronization Technique). This clinical experiment tested the null hypothesis that there is no clinically or statistically significant difference in effect between the 2 approaches.

Methods

The study was conducted in the research clinic of the Parker College of Chiropractic. Patients were initially recruited by contacting a previously developed pool used for studies related to fall prevention in the elderly. Eighty-one patients (74 females; median age, 66 years) were enrolled and 78 (96%) completed the study. The primary end point was the end of a 3-week nontreatment interval after a 4-week treatment period. An intention-to-treat analysis was used; all patients who completed assessments were included whether or not they were compliant with the treatment protocol. A sample size of 55 per group was estimated to be necessary to detect a clinically significant (6-point) between-group difference in the Pain Disability Index (PDI). The primary outcome, the mean between-group difference between PDI scores at visit 1 and the exit visit, was tested with a 2-tailed t test for independent samples.

Results

Mean improvements in the PDI from visit 1 to the exit visit were 6.9 points in the Bioenergetic Synchronization Technique group (n = 40) and 6.4 in the diversified technique group (n = 38); the between-groups difference was not statistically or clinically significant (95% confidence interval, −4.7 to 5.8).

Conclusions

For this particular group of patients, both groups demonstrated similar improvement scores on the PDI; the study's null hypothesis was not rejected.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 15.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0161-4754(06)00171-0

doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2006.06.026

Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics
Volume 29, Issue 7 , Pages 540-549, September 2006