Advanced search


Search results        Search results      Copy URL to E-Mail

Treatment Credibility in Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment Research
Russo, D. P. [11]
Licciardone, J. C. [97]

Journal: The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association Date: 2004/08, 104(8):Pages: 341. doi: Subito , type of study: cross sectional study

Full text    (https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.7556/jaoa.2004.104.8.337/html)

Keywords:

cross sectional study [842]
research [449]
treatment credibility [3]

Abstract:

Purpose: Treatment credibility refers to the degree to which subjects believe that the treatments offered to them in competing arms of clinical trials are likely to be beneficial. We recently explored treatment credibility in a randomized controlled trial of ostoepathic manipulative treatment (OMT) for chronic low back pain that included both sham manipulation and no-intervention controls to determine how confidence in treatment may affect trial completion and findings. Methods: Written descriptions of osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) and sham manipulation were presented to subjects at trial baseline and exit. They were then asked to rate their confidence in each treatment using a weighted, five-point Likert scale: “strongly agree,“ (5); “agree,“ (4); “undecided,“ (3); “disagree,“ (2); and “strongly disagree“ (1). The primary outcome measure was the credibility ratio (CR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) for credibility in OMT relative to credibility in sham manipulation, as computed by the relative weights for responses to the two relevants items. Results: Overall, the credibility ratio at baseline was 1.10 (1.03 - 1.16), indicating a small, but statistically significant, credibility differential favoring OMT over sham manipulation. Similarly, at trial exit, the credibility ratio was 1.15 (1.06 - 1.23). Changes in the credibility ratio over time were not significant (P = .36). There were no significant differences in CRs between trial completers and non-completers or among the three treatment groups. Further, there were no significant (treatment group) x (time) interactions. Conclusions: Slightly elevated CRs suggested a small treatment credibility differential favoring OMT over sham manipulation; however, the results did not indicate that treatment credibility systematically affected trial results or attrition.

Search results      Copy URL to E-Mail

 
 
 






  • Impressum • Legal notice • Datenschutz •


ostlib.de/data_wyrmcjuqkfzpdaevstgx



Supported by

OSTLIB recommends