pjeby gave a recommendation for myofascial trigger message. I make the point that this is one way to approach the issue, but my recommendation was rather to go to an osteopath. Osteopathy as a field is not completely without peer-reviewed evidence, see for example https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33197571/
isn’t supported by good evidence
There are plenty of medical issues for which there are no clinical trials that study techniques that effectively solve those issues. In those cases, searching for the key under the streetlights is often not a wise strategy.
You’re right it might be a good idea to try it, but at the same time it’s important for the OP to know it doesn’t quite have the status of evidence-based medicine.
my recommendation was rather to go to an osteopath
Wikipedia also says the same thing about osteopathy. You’re right in what you’re saying, but the OP should have the additional information of the recommendation not being fully evidence-based medicine.
I routinely find it amazing how many people hold that belief without being able to provide evidence for it being true.
Somehow people get the idea that they can come through theoretical arguments and believe in authorities in a dogma that practicing medicine in a certain way means it’s more likely to work. Those same people then apply that dogma to call for individual medical approaches needing different kinds of evidence to be accept then the way they accepted the dogma.
A while ago there was a paper about how parachutes are not an evidence-based intervention. Since then a controlled study of parachute usage even found that they provide no significant benefit for people who jump out of planes to protect them from injury.
If you don’t floss because flossing is not an evidence-based intervention, I would say that there is good evidence that you are making bad health decisions.
Jeremy Howick makes the point in “The philosophy of Evidence-Based Medicine” that the treatments where we have the strongest evidence generally aren’t Evidence-Based Medicine.
Additionally, different research communities do research differently. Among the medical practitioners that are part of the establishment view of medicine, dentists are a community that puts little weight on Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) and as a result, a treatment like flossing isn’t well supported in EBM standards.
If you aren’t believing your dentist when he recommends flossing on that basis you are making a mistake. You are making a similar mistake when you reject other research communities’ knowledge because they don’t conform to that form.
Since then a controlled study of parachute usage even found that they provide no significant benefit for people who jump out of planes to protect them from injury.
“Opponents of evidence-based medicine have frequently argued that no one would perform a randomized trial of parachute use. We have shown this argument to be flawed, having conclusively shown that it is possible to randomize participants to jumping from an aircraft with versus without parachutes (albeit under limited and specific scenarios).”
Read it and weep. (Or laugh, whichever helps you sleep better.)
I mean, that was really funny, but I don’t see what a parody study has to do with the topic.
To get back to the topic, we could define evidence_based_1 as something that’s recognized to be Evidence-Based Medicine, and evidence_based_2 as something for which there is good evidence.
I’m saying osteopathy and the recommended kind of massage are neither evidence_based_1, nor evidence_based_2.
You are saying that just because something isn’t evidence_based_1, doesn’t mean it’s not evidence_based_2 (and presumably the implication being that osteopathy is evidence_based_2).
I checked this paragraph and I’m not quite convinced, but I think we’ve exhausted the topic at this point (in any case, the OP knows about it, so it’s up to him to choose).
I mean, that was really funny, but I don’t see what a parody study has to do with the topic.
It’s a summary of the available evidence. Studies often fail to investigate what you really want to know for all sorts of reasons by having a study environment that differs from the way the technique is practiced in the real world.
I checked this paragraph and I’m not quite convinced, but I think we’ve exhausted the topic at this point (in any case, the OP knows about it, so it’s up to him to choose).
That paragraph is written in the same spirit of summarizing the evidence as what I wrote about parachutes. Both are straightforward summaries of the published evidence without engaging in deeper thought about the underlying mechanisms.
The paragraph also does say “moderate-quality evidence that OMT reduces pain and improves functional status in acute and chronic nonspecific low back pain”.
It’s in the nature of looking for evidence that you will be able to write metastudies about thousands of different things for which there’s no evidence that treatment X helps. Aspirin (another treatment for low back pain) also doesn’t help with asthma. That in no way implies Aspirin not being EBM.
pjeby gave a recommendation for myofascial trigger message. I make the point that this is one way to approach the issue, but my recommendation was rather to go to an osteopath. Osteopathy as a field is not completely without peer-reviewed evidence, see for example https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33197571/
There are plenty of medical issues for which there are no clinical trials that study techniques that effectively solve those issues. In those cases, searching for the key under the streetlights is often not a wise strategy.
You’re right it might be a good idea to try it, but at the same time it’s important for the OP to know it doesn’t quite have the status of evidence-based medicine.
Wikipedia also says the same thing about osteopathy. You’re right in what you’re saying, but the OP should have the additional information of the recommendation not being fully evidence-based medicine.
Why? Status doesn’t say anything about whether or not the treatment will help the OP.
Why not?
It pays little rent to know that flossing is no evidence-based medicine.
Thinking in terms of status often leads to using in-group/out-group heuristics that don’t help people solve their medical problems.
What I meant was that something that’s not evidence-based medicine is less likely to work.
I routinely find it amazing how many people hold that belief without being able to provide evidence for it being true.
Somehow people get the idea that they can come through theoretical arguments and believe in authorities in a dogma that practicing medicine in a certain way means it’s more likely to work. Those same people then apply that dogma to call for individual medical approaches needing different kinds of evidence to be accept then the way they accepted the dogma.
I had in mind the distinction between good evidence/not good evidence, or enough evidence/little evidence, etc.
Not a dogma, or practicing medicine in a certain way, etc.
A while ago there was a paper about how parachutes are not an evidence-based intervention. Since then a controlled study of parachute usage even found that they provide no significant benefit for people who jump out of planes to protect them from injury.
If you don’t floss because flossing is not an evidence-based intervention, I would say that there is good evidence that you are making bad health decisions.
Jeremy Howick makes the point in “The philosophy of Evidence-Based Medicine” that the treatments where we have the strongest evidence generally aren’t Evidence-Based Medicine.
Additionally, different research communities do research differently. Among the medical practitioners that are part of the establishment view of medicine, dentists are a community that puts little weight on Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) and as a result, a treatment like flossing isn’t well supported in EBM standards.
If you aren’t believing your dentist when he recommends flossing on that basis you are making a mistake. You are making a similar mistake when you reject other research communities’ knowledge because they don’t conform to that form.
Wait, what?
From Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial:
Read it and weep. (Or laugh, whichever helps you sleep better.)
The study is Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: a randomised controlled trial by Yeh et al.
I mean, that was really funny, but I don’t see what a parody study has to do with the topic.
To get back to the topic, we could define evidence_based_1 as something that’s recognized to be Evidence-Based Medicine, and evidence_based_2 as something for which there is good evidence.
I’m saying osteopathy and the recommended kind of massage are neither evidence_based_1, nor evidence_based_2.
You are saying that just because something isn’t evidence_based_1, doesn’t mean it’s not evidence_based_2 (and presumably the implication being that osteopathy is evidence_based_2).
I checked this paragraph and I’m not quite convinced, but I think we’ve exhausted the topic at this point (in any case, the OP knows about it, so it’s up to him to choose).
It’s a summary of the available evidence. Studies often fail to investigate what you really want to know for all sorts of reasons by having a study environment that differs from the way the technique is practiced in the real world.
That paragraph is written in the same spirit of summarizing the evidence as what I wrote about parachutes. Both are straightforward summaries of the published evidence without engaging in deeper thought about the underlying mechanisms.
The paragraph also does say “moderate-quality evidence that OMT reduces pain and improves functional status in acute and chronic nonspecific low back pain”.
It’s in the nature of looking for evidence that you will be able to write metastudies about thousands of different things for which there’s no evidence that treatment X helps. Aspirin (another treatment for low back pain) also doesn’t help with asthma. That in no way implies Aspirin not being EBM.