Myovision Scans and Chiropractic

image

An advert in my local paper called for people to come into the Wells Chiropractic & Osteopathy Centre for an introductory price of £19. Included in this price was a “complete consultation and results, including the latest high-tech Myovision Scan”.

Chiropractors have been criticised for trying to lure people into lengthy, costly and, importantly, unnecessary treatments. Chiropractic is of limited therapeutic value. It may help a little with lower back pain, but no more than pain killers and exercise. The wilder claims of chiropractic, such as being able to treat childhood ailments, have been shown to be utter nonsense.

So what is a Myovision scan and what function does it provide during an initial chiropractic consultation?

A Myovision device is a handheld scanner that is designed to measure electric activity in skeletal muscles. According to the manufacturer,

The MyoVision Scan takes 90 seconds and is completely safe, painless and non-invasive. The MyoVision sEMG ScanVisions read the voltage that the muscles in your spine naturally emit. These readings look at the level of voltage and the patterns of directionality, which allows your healthcare professional to determine if your spine and nervous system are functioning optimally.

The result is a picture, as shown above, that is supposed to be diagnostic of problems in the spine that the chiropractor can then get to work on.

The Myovision is a type of surface electromyography device. Such devices usually use needles to detect the electrical activity in muscles. There appear to be some genuine uses that such a device can be used in diagnosis certain muscle diseases. However, given chiropractic’s limited utility, why a chiropractor would use such a device is very unclear.

Although electromyography does have a certain applicability within medicine, it looks like Myovision are not aiming at the medical profession, but almost exclusively to chiropractors. Why would they do this if such measurements were of very limited and chiropractic largely ineffective? A recent review of surface electromyography concluded that “there are insufficient data to support its utility for distinguishing between neuropathic and myopathic conditions or for the diagnosis of specific neuromuscular diseases.”

Myovision’s web site talks about how doctors are using their product. Yet, testimonials and blog are exclusively about chiropractic use of the tool. It is a central conceit of chiropractors that they are entitled to use the title ‘doctor’. Yet, they are not medically qualified and their training is derivative of the superstitious beliefs of their founder – a magnetic healer and mystic.

It would appear that the device appeals to chiropractors as it gives a scientific veneer to an unvalidated diagnostic. On the basis of the scan, a customer might be enrolled on a lengthy and expensive course of treatment that is both ineffective and unnecessary, but very profitable to the chiropractor.

The Myovision device would not be the only type of questionable diagnostic procedure undertaken by chiropractors. Many still use X-rays. Such exposures to ionising radiation for the sake of detecting chiropractic’s mythical subluxations would appear to be both unethical and illegal.

Remarkably, it looks like it is common practice for chiropractors in the UK to use some sort of discount incentive and questionable diagnostic procedure to rope customers into ‘wellness’ treatment plans. You will find many examples on the web of chiropractors who have set up consultancies specialising in such ‘practice building’. Groupon is routinely running such introductory discount offers for ‘spinal check-ups’.

Chiropractic is a statutory regulated profession. As such, it would appear remarkable that chiropractors could get away with such practices.

But the regulator, the General Chiropractic Council, is a chocolate teapot. Until recently, it not just ignored the wild and unevidenced claims of the profession, but actively encouraged them. It was only when the British Chiropractic Association unsuccessfully tried to sue Simon Singh after he wrote in the Guardian about their absurd claims they were making that the GGC were forced into action by the hundreds of complaints made to them. They have since spent the last few years desperately trying to find the weasel words that would allow them not to strike off the bulk of their members.

In recent days, the GCC has admitted that they are guilty of ‘systemic failures’ in their ability to protect the public. It is not clear at the moment why they are saying this. This is despite the CHRE, the body charged with overseeing health regulators giving the GCC a clean bill of health.

The failure of the GCC to oversee how chiropractors use questionable diagnostic procedures in order to lure punters into handing over large quantities of cash, is just one more aspect of their utter failure to protect the public.

But if they were to stamp out dodgy practices, I would guess that there would be few chiropractors who could sustain a business. Would a regulator regulate itself out of business? If its only goal was to protect the public then is should and it could. But if it is really only protecting its own existence, then do not expect to see any action here.

55 comments for “Myovision Scans and Chiropractic

  1. rita
    April 15, 2012 at 9:26 am

    “Such devices usually use needles to detect the electrical activity in muscles”……I’ll say they do!: I had one of these after some sciatica attacks, apparently (this was a normal hospital) as standard practice to detect damage to the nerves. I was supposed to have another one, but one session of torture was enough! If the machine mentioned here really does the same job (if it really was a job?) without the pain, more power to its elbow – does it, however? certainly not worth it in the chiro- context!

  2. April 15, 2012 at 9:59 am

    If challenged about this, I’m wondering if the GCC would use a tactic that it’s resorted to in the past when asked for its view on an unvalidated diagnostic:

    Quote

    “Members discussed correspondence received from a GP seeking the view of the GCC in respect of the use by a chiropractor of a Vegatest Machine, which apparently has been banned in many parts of the USA by regulatory bodies, after various complaints that it had led to false diagnosis, fraudulent treatment and had in some cases delayed a cancer diagnosis as the symptoms had been misdiagnosed as spurious allergies.

    Members AGREED that it would not be appropriate for the GCC to comment on a commercial product.”

    http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/link_file/C-020605-Open%20Minutes.pdf (page3)

    However, given that newspapers could be considered commercial products, and that the GCC has never been shy of issuing indignant rebuttals to editors whenever they have published articles that have been critical of chiropractic, it would appear that the GCC is happy to contradict itself when it suits its agenda – something which can only add to the strong suspicion that it is a self-interest group.

  3. FredM
    April 15, 2012 at 10:36 am

    Good post but the phrase “limited therapeutic value” (not your own, I know) understates the serious dangers of chiropractic manipulation. See, for exaple: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/726445

  4. April 15, 2012 at 11:03 am

    As usual Andy you find a story and make sweeping conclusions from it. I was offered to distribute the Myovision in the UK 10 years ago, I declined because I did not feel the information provided by the scan, gave you much information about what was going on at deep spinal joint level as opposed to changes in surface temp. I would say most UK chiropractors would agree with that and it is only a very small proportion of chiropractors in the UK who use them. They do give information about asymmetrical muscle spasm and inflammation in surface tissue which cam be used to show patients changes after they have had chiropractic adjustments.

    If you have bothered to check the GCC website you would know that they do not set standards or make the rules about x rays in the UK. They state “Your chiropractor will only recommend that an x-ray be taken if there is a VALID CLINICAL REASON for doing so. Like all health professionals, chiropractors must comply with the legislation that governs the use of x-rays – the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) Regulations 2000. I have £30,000 of x ray equipment in my practice, because I resigned from the register I can no longer order x rays,its nothing to do with the GC., I accept that restriction when I resigned from the register because there should be strict regulation on the use of x rays as they have been overused by all professions who use them.Interestingly as I got more experienced, I was taking hardly any x rays.

    In addition, (but why let facts get in the way of a good story) in the UK a subluxation is not a valid “clinical reason” for taking an X ray, a few chiropractors were done early on for trying to make the case for it. A subluxation is a term for spinal joint dysfunction also used by medical practitioners to describe hypermobility in a joint. X rays are better for showing pathological changes and not very usefull for showing a loss of joint motion, which could be restricted in its anatomical position.

    Andy I have explained all this before to you, somehere in cyberspace. I guess you have forgotten, so I am working on a website with all these explanations for skeptic fundamentalists to check on. By the way, do you have any qualifications in clinical science?

    • Muscleguy
      April 16, 2012 at 11:04 am

      So because a term might be useful and valid in one context it is automatically valid in another? So all joints can move in all dimensions can they? I wonder why evolution made them different shapes and with all those lumps and bumps, ligaments and muscles which restrict ranges of movement? It couldn’t be because of function could it?

      We know what vertebrae out of alignment actually look like on x-ray, one hint is a disc hernia. As others have pointed out give the same x-rays or the same patient to different chiropractors for diagnosis and you will not get consistent answers. You may think you have experience but the demonstrable fact that yours differs from other chiropractors should give you pause for thought but I bet you lose not a second of sleep over it.

      I am entitled to use Dr as a title and so long as I don’t imply I’m a medical one I can use it to set myself up in all sorts of altmed. I don’t because I care about things like truth and consistency and being able to look at myself in the mirror in the morning. That I might be poorer or less employed as a result is no excuse.

      There are other things you can do if you don’t get into med school you know. I found one. You could for eg have qualified as a physiotherapist. At least the ones I know do worry about things like evidence based medicine.

      Anyway I’ll trust to my exercise program to keep my back in shape. I know that works and it’s a darn sight cheaper than relying on you.

      • April 16, 2012 at 4:17 pm

        Its a name for joint dysfunction. Joints can flex, extend, rotate and bend laterally for your information. The ability to rotate is greater in the cervical spine that the lumbar spine because of the shape of the joints which have adapted to evolutionary needs as say the shoulder and hip which in the embryo are very similar.

        FYI you can not see a disc herniation on an x ray because its soft tissue. And herniation while painfull may not show misalignment because of the ability of spinal muscles and joints to adapt. Compenstopry arthritis caused by the disc herniation would eventually show on x ray.

        Surely the fact I dont take x rays any more, might offer an alternative reason as to why “I dont loose not a second of sleep over it. Read my post again.

        Why do you think I use the title Dr, or I dont like evidence based medicine, I am a big fan of David Sackett but find many people who talk EBM have not read Sackett and limit it entirely to published research which is not EBM. I have never been interested in going to med school and a number of excellent physiotherapists have worked for me when I was working in Denmark with their elite athletes.But I wanted to learn to perform spinal adjustments and they dont teach that at physio school who spend to much time messing around with ultra sound and interferential rather than correcting the mechanical problem.

        The best thing you can do for your back is stay active and exercise, on that point you will get no argument from me. Hope that helps clarify a few things you seem to have misunderstood about me.

    • April 29, 2012 at 7:15 pm

      Richard, please contact me if you like. Man have things changed since I saw you last. Sure, some of these guys use the tool wrong, but we’re now the “Tool of Choice” as shown in the AMA’s Medical Text on Range of Motion (it includes Dynamic Surface EMG along with Range of Motion). So here people argue about the validity of the tool, and the AMA recognizes it??? Education is the only way to get people to use the tool properly, and perhaps you can direct me to who in the UK would be good to work with in setting up educational seminars. If not properly educated in the limits of any tool, it opens up the tool for abuse. But in the States the tools are well accepted, with their limitations well known. Thanks! David@myovision.com

  5. Le Canard Noir
    April 15, 2012 at 11:40 am

    Richard – as a chiropractor, you are unlikely to accept the central argument about X-rays: since, X-rays cannot detect what many chiropractors are supposedly looking for (the mythical subluxations) and since chiropractic cannot be clinically justified for any condition, then X-rays can never be justified and are hence being made illegally.

    The General Chiropractic Council, the regulator, desperately clings to the idea that chiropractic is a genuine medical speciality, so is unable to protect the public in this regard.

    And if you read my post on X-rays, you will see I understand the legislation having been previously trained in ionising radiation protection.

    • April 16, 2012 at 3:47 pm

      Andy, you always assume that you know how I think, we will be calling you “Mystic Andy” soon. Did you miss this in my post “in the UK a subluxation is not a valid “clinical reason” for taking an X ray” A subluxation is a name related to joint motion not something which can be demonstrated on x ray.

    • Brad
      July 5, 2012 at 4:08 am

      I challenge you to check out the CBP (Chiropractic Biophysics) technique research as what you have stated ‘…and since chiropractic cannot be clinically justified for any condition…’ is blatantly wrong. There is now much research to show that abnormal spinal shape leads to greater incidence of pain and returning spine to normal position will lead to a reduction in this pain using medically accepted pain analogue scale measurements.

  6. Andrew Gilbey
    April 16, 2012 at 10:30 am

    Richard,

    Give the same x-ray to five different chiropractors, each in a different room, and ask them each where is the subluxation. Just to make it a little more fun, don’t let them out until they are all in agreement as to where the subluxation lies. By my rough probabilistic reckoning, those chiropractors are going to be in those rooms for a long, long time (33 x 33 x 33 x 33 x 33 and all that sort of thing).

    Myovision? Schmyovision!

    • April 16, 2012 at 3:50 pm

      cant disagree with that. Personally not happy with the way chiropractors have used x rays. Or for that matter the British government using them to estimate the age of immigrant children

  7. Muscleguy
    April 16, 2012 at 10:50 am

    Surface electrodes can be used for EMG, though a dab of conducting gel is often required (unless the electrode already has it on). After all an ECG is just a specialised sort of EMG for one particular muscle mass. Also if you have an EOG then your eye movements are recordable with surface electrodes. I used to run a 3rd year medical teaching lab where doing EOG’s was part of it. Since I am not medically qualified, merely a physiologist then they must have been surface electrodes, so my memory is not defective.

    As for the Myovision test, I trust the patient is coached extensively in how to relax their back muscles completely or simple postural tensions will tend to give discordant measurements. The muscles around the spine are postural muscles so are almost always active to some extent as can be demonstrated by simply lying on your front or back for some time on the sort of flat surface as a chiropractor’s couch. You will have a strong urge to move after a while as your back muscles get fatigued and send ‘change positions’ signals to your brain.

    Also if a vertebrae is ‘out of alignment’ whether or not the associated muscles are differentially active will depend very much on posture and activity. So this muscle expert calls bollocks on this device.

  8. Liam Mulvany
    April 16, 2012 at 2:05 pm

    Nice piece Andy, if all else fails do an Edzard, make sweeping statements about chiropractic, that’ll get the hits up!
    Again for the umpteenth time, I am a chiropractor, I have never taken x rays, I dont look for subluxations, I have never used the title Dr. and would never even think of using this myo crap that is basically a marketing tool. And AGAIN, I’m not unusual, there are a lot of chiropractors out there like me.
    Muscleguy, “There are other things you can do if you don’t get into med school you know. I found one. You could for eg have qualified as a physiotherapist.” How patronising. Do you think we train to be chiros because we are unable to train to be medics?? How ill informed you are. Most chiropractors become chiropractors because they have experienced and benefitted from chiropractic treatment its that simple. Oh and my brother is a “qualified ” physiotherapist who then trained as a chiropractor. Have a guess which he finds gives him the best results? Have a guess why he felt the need to do further training and qualify as a chiropractor?

  9. paysan
    April 16, 2012 at 3:24 pm

    “A Myovision device is a handheld scanner that is designed to measure electric activity in skeletal muscles. According to the manufacturer……….”

    Hmm a scanner that measures voltage. I would be interested to know how it achieves this, I would have thought it was either a scanner or a voltage measuring instrument. A scanner works by emitting a signal and analysing any reflections, I may be a bit behind the times but I don’t understand how voltages can be measured in this way. A voltage measuring instrument detects any difference in potential between two probes, you would therefore need to insert the probes into the tissue to be measured.
    So what is it measuring? One possibility it is basically an electrician’s multi range meter set to test resistance. If you take the probes of the meter in your finger tips you will see a deflection of the needle, in effect you are measuring your body’s resistance.
    Or maybe it is measuring the temperature of the skin; as alluded to by Richard Lanigan. In either case it looks to be very much a case of “we have the machine that goes beep”

    • April 16, 2012 at 4:30 pm

      Of course it is, it is a sales gimic. The point I am making is very few chiropractors use them in the UK. But if some chiropractors are using them instead of x raying all their patients, its an improvement on bad practice, which does happen.

      Andy finds examples of bad practice and assumes thats what all chiropractors do, even though he knows it is not correct. Liam is a chiropractor and has never taken an x-ray in his life. Less than 30% of chiropractors in the UK have x ray equipment and as the price of MRI comes down, I suspect few will have them in 10 years

      • Le Canard Noir
        April 16, 2012 at 5:04 pm

        “Andy finds examples of bad practice and assumes thats what all chiropractors do”

        Evidence?

      • Liam Mulvany
        April 17, 2012 at 1:45 pm

        “Chiropractic & Osteopathy Centre” Andy, Funny how you have automatically presumed its the chiropractic side of this clinic that is using these questionable diagnostsic techniques. Have you any evidence that its not the osteopath thats using the Myovision scan? If you have simply read the article then “presumed” it must be the chiro not the osteo then there is the evidence of your own bias.
        Again “Remarkably, it looks like it is common practice for chiropractors in the UK to use some sort of discount incentive and questionable diagnostic procedure to rope customers into ‘wellness’ treatment plans.” I quote “common practice for chiropractors” again shows your own bias and instintive negative attitude to ALL chiropractors.

      • Liam Mulvany
        April 17, 2012 at 2:18 pm

        Andy to give you further evidence of your own bias here is an osteo clinic offering myovision. You sure its the chiropractor?
        http://www.osteo4u.co.uk/myovision.php
        or
        “We have two Osteopath Melbourne locations – Ringwood Osteopathy and Warrandyte Osteopathy. … Back pain scanner that’s out of this world – Evening Standard … But Myovision takes just a few minutes to pinpoint the areas which .”..

    • April 20, 2012 at 8:57 am

      So you are happy with your analysis without even looking into it? How does it achieve it? It is precisely how the EKG works. What do you think an EKG is measuring? Heat? No, the summation of depolarizations beneath the skin, measured as a voltage. V-IR. Good luck measuring with an electrician’s multi-range meter (known as a DVM). Considering the fact you believe a “VOLT” meter is measuring resistance (the fact it is called a “volt” meter is supposed to give you a hint that you are measuring voltage. The only deflection you see on the fingertips is the skin’s resistance, or impedance.

      We are measuring in the millionths of a volt range with Surface EMG measures which is why you cannot use a DVM for the measures, as the signal is too small. You would have to have a solid physics or electrical engineering background to understand how difficult this is, and how specialize the electronics must be to be capable of extracting such tiny signals.

      • Alan Henness
        April 20, 2012 at 10:48 am

        David Macarian

        Any idea what the red and green bars on the top picture represent? What’s the scale? I can’t see any details on myovision’s website.

      • paysan
        May 5, 2012 at 11:56 am

        Impedance??? Measured with a multirange meter??? Do you understand what impedance is?

      • paysan
        May 5, 2012 at 5:28 pm

        “So you are happy with your analysis without even looking into it?”
        Not sure who you are addressing here. If it is me then all I have done is explain what an electricians multi range meter does.
        “ the summation of depolarizations beneath the skin,”
        ?
        V-IR – do you mean Ohm’s law I=V/R? What’s this got to do with it?
        “Considering the fact you believe a “VOLT” meter is measuring resistance (the fact it is called a “volt” meter is supposed to give you a hint that you are measuring voltage.”
        I didn’t claim that a volt meter measured resistance, I said that you can use an electrician’s multimeter to measure resistance.
        “We are measuring in the millionths of a volt range with Surface EMG measures which is why you cannot use a DVM for the measures,”
        So you are measuring millivolts, still no big deal you just need a more sensitive voltmeter.
        “You would have to have a solid physics or electrical engineering background to understand how difficult this is, and how specialize the electronics must be to be capable of extracting such tiny signals.”
        I am an electrical engineer and any A level student would recognize this for the nonsense it is.

        • paysan
          May 5, 2012 at 6:15 pm

          “So you are measuring millivolts” Oh dear correction, should have been micro volts.

        • May 12, 2012 at 6:24 pm

          If you think millionths of a volt is “millivolts” then you establish your lack of knowledge without comment. Look it up, pal. Micro, not milli. HUGE difference. Take a class in physics or something. Look it up. Milli is not “millionths”. micro is “millionths”. And you can’t do it with a DVM. Sorry. Just physics. You tell me how it works. Good luck.

          • paysan
            May 15, 2012 at 8:43 am

            “Take a class in physics or something”
            This nothing to do with physics these are logarithms which are a branch of mathematics which is a tool that scientists and engineers use. For your further edification -a logarithm of a number is the exponent by which another fixed value, the base, has to be raised to produce that number. All simple elementary mathematics.
            However we do seem to have some agreement in that we have established that the Myovision apparatus measures voltage differences between two or more probes on the surface of the skin. Perhaps David Marcarian could explain how these voltage differences relate to the bars on the diagram? Alan Henness has already asked approximately this question and there doesn’t seem to have been any response.
            The electrocardiogram also measures small changes in electrical activity but can be purchased for less than 1000 Euros I note that the Myovision kit seems to cost very much more. Perhaps you could enlighten us?

        • Vicky
          May 12, 2012 at 6:46 pm

          micro is “millionths”

          Which is what paysan said a week ago in his correction.

  10. JimR
    April 16, 2012 at 4:11 pm

    When I was in the scouts, we made and then played with galvanic skin response meters. This sounds like a “new and improved” version. It measures exactly what it measures, and no inferences can be made. It is a simple instrument that gives simple outputs. There would have to be a well documented basis for any diagnostic, medical or religious, using this instrument.

  11. April 17, 2012 at 12:35 am

    It is important be educated when reviewing any device for it’s validity and credibility. I would gladly help you understand better the utilization and technology required for Surface EMG measurements.

    You state that “Surface EMG” usually uses “needles” which is patently false. If you do a literature review using the term “Surface EMG” via PUBMED you will find 7,560 references. Are all these published researchers using the term incorrectly and all the scientific journals published the word “Surface” when they meant “needle?” Obviously not.

    Surface EMG is very well respected tool, as proven by myself in the legal case in Florida against the State of Florida and 300 insurers. It went through appeals and we established it’s value without question.

    Considering that the AMA recognizes Surface EMG (See CPT Code 96002 and 96004), you are kind of all alone with your view of it.

    But to be specific, there are two types of Surface EMG: Static, showing muscles about the spine while standing, and Dynamic, with electrodes attached and measuring the muscular firing in motion. Both are valuable tools, as is an MRI, but you have to know what the data means to use them.

    Having done serious work with Surface EMG at NASA, I would gladly help educate you on the proper use and interpretation of Surface EMG if you like. You can reach me at my email address provided.

    In the mean time, if you would like to present a credible case, avoid making technical errors like believing that 7,560 researchers are wrong, when you confidently make statements which are completely false.

    There is nothing wrong with presenting an opinion. If you want to have an effect on anyone other than your friends, you may want to back up the opinion with solid data to support it. Always here to help.

    David Marcarian

    • Le Canard Noir
      April 17, 2012 at 7:55 am

      Firslty, apologies if my wording is unclear above. Electromyography devices usually do use needles. Your device is a “surface” version that does not. My wording may be ambiguous – but is not as you quoted it.

      But glad to see the NASA claim. One of my principle red flags for dubious health claims. Well done.

      But while you are here, as a result of your claimed “7,560 researchers”, can you point me to any systematic review of that evidence that suggests you device has genuine diagnostic effectiveness that can lead to successful chiropractic treatment?

      I am here all day, so take your time.

      • April 20, 2012 at 9:14 am

        I’m happy you have all day. I’m pretty busy myself. Where do I start.

        First off, needle EMG and Surface EMG are both subcatogories of EMG. There is no such thing as “EMG” meaning Needle. Someone simply to go http://www.infotrieve.com which provides a search engine for all the studies published in indexed medical journals. I’m not “claiming” 7,560 studies, it is a fact. The American Medical Association has a five digit CPT code for Surface EMG. It is 96002 (with 96004 as a report). How does the AMA have it as a tool if it does not exist as one? If you want to read the best review of the literature on Surface EMG, read google “Geiser’s” paper published in the Journal of Pain, 2005. A Meta-Analytic Review of Surface Electromyography Among
        Persons With Low Back Pain and Normal, Healthy Controls. This is the best overview of Surface EMG relating to low back pain.

        I think if the title of this paper says “SURFACE Electromyography” then perhaps game over? I work with both needle and surface EMG, and they are completely different tools. Needle to establish nerve damage, Surface to measure the body’s “guarding” response to injury, aiding with retraining muscles through biofeedback, etc. You can go to http://www.proformavision.com to see a very unique application of Surface EMG.

        How about we make a bet? If you search on Surface EMG and to be sure, search on Surface Electromyography, if one of those two search terms in fact has over 7,500 papers published when using http://www.infotrieve.com (it searchers all the databases (pubmed, medline etc). If I win, and there are over 7,500 studies, you take down this nonsense? Deal? I’m willing to bet you won’t take the bet. It costs nothing to do the search but you have to set up a free account.

        Come on, you seem very confident. It is important for all out there to recognize that the internet has given an avenue for all kinds of people to publish all kinds of claims and FEEL like they are publishing in the New York Times. The fact is that this is published to make you feel good, not to help spread proper information. If the group of people is really interested in a scientific presentation on Surface EMG, please let me know and I can teach a class via webinar if you like. You won’t though as you are happy with your interpretation of reality.

        Please take the bet. Please PLEASE PLEASE! I’m either right, or I’m wrong. You’re either right or your wrong. let the data speak instead of you or I.

      • April 20, 2012 at 9:22 am

        You asked for it…

        1. Geisser ME, Wiggert EA, Haig AJ, Colwell MO. A randomized, controlled trial of manual therapy and specific adjuvant exercise for chronic low back pain. Journal of Pain, 2005; Vol. 6, No. 11: 711-726
        2. Rosomoff HL, Fishbain DA, Goldberg M, Santana R, Rosomoff RS. Physical findings in patients with chronic intractable benign pain of the neck and/or back. Pain 1989; 37: 279-87.
        3. Gatchel RJ, Polatin PB, Kinney RK. Predicting outcome of chronic back pain using clinical predictors of psychopathology: a prospective analysis. Hlth Psychol 1995;14:415-20.
        4. Gatchel RJ, Polatin PB, Mayer TG. The dominant role of psychosocial risk factors in the development of chronic low back pain disability. Spine 1995;20:2702-9.
        5. Cram JR, Steger JC. EMG scanning in the diagnosis of chronic pain. Biofeedback and Self-Regulation 1983;8:229-41.
        6. Dolce JJ, Raczynski JM. Neuromuscular activity and electromyography in painful backs: Psychological and biomechanical models in assessment and treatment. Psychol Bull 1985;97:502-20.
        7. Greenman PE. Syndromes of the lumbar spine, pelvis and sacrum. Phys Med Rehabil Clin North Amer 1996;7:773-85.
        8. Mense S. Nociception from skeletal muscle in relation to clinical pain. Pain 1993;54:241-89.
        9. Watson PJ, Booker CK, Main CJ, Chen AC. Surface electromyography in the identification of chronic low back pain patients: the development of the flexion relaxation ratio. Clin Biomech 1997;12:165-71.
        10. Ohrbach R, McCall WD Jr. The stress-hyperactivity-pain theory of myogenic pain. Pain Forum 1996;5:51-66.
        11. Cobb CR, deVries HA, Urban RT, Luekens CA, Bagg RJ. Electrical activity in muscle pain. Amer J Phys Med 1975;54:80-7.
        12. Nouwen A, Bush C. The relationship between paraspinal EMG and chronic low back pain. Pain 1984;20:109-23.
        13. Haig AJ, Gelblum JB, Rechtein JJ, Gitter AJ. Technology assessment: the use of surface EMG in the diagnosis and treatment of nerve and muscle disorders. Muscle Nerve 1996;19:392-5.
        14. Pullman SL, Goodin DS, Marquinez AI, Tabbal S, Rubin M. Clinical utility of surface EMG. Report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurol 2000;55:171-7.
        15. Dumitru D. Practical aspect of instrumentation. In: Johnson EW, Pease WS (eds), Practical electromyography (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1997:63-87.
        16. Mayer TG, Kondraske G, Mooney V, Carmichael TW, Butsch R. Lumbar myoelectric spectral analysis for endurance assessment. A comparison of normals with deconditioned patients. Spine 1989;14:986-91.
        17. Wolf SL, Nacht M, Kelly JL. EMG feedback training during dynamic movement for low back pain patients. Behav Ther 1982;13:395-406.
        18. Haig AJ, Weismann G, Haugh LD, Pope M, Grobler LJ. Prospective evidence for change in paraspinal muscle activity after herniated nucleus pulposus. Spine 1993;18:926-30.
        19. Crombez G, Vlaeyen JWS, Heuts PHTG, Lysens R. Pain-related fear is more disabling than pain itself: evidence on the role of pain-related fear in chronic back pain disability. Pain 1999;80:329-339.
        20. Flor H, Birbaumer N, Turk DC. The psychobiology of chronic pain. Adv Behav Res Ther 1990;12:47-84.
        21. Geisser ME, Haig AJ, Wallbom AS, Wiggert EA. Pain-related fear, lumbar flexion, and dynamic EMG among persons with chronic musculoskeletal low back pain. Clin J Pain 2004;20:61-69.
        22. Robinson ME, Riley JL 3rd. Models of pain. In: Block AR, Kremer EF, Fernandez E (eds), Handbook of pain syndromes: biopsychosocial perspectives. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1998:23-40.
        23. Elert J, Kendall SA, Larsson B, Mansson B, Gerdle B. Chronic pain and difficulty in relaxing postural muscles in patients with fibromyalgia and chronic whiplash associated disorders. J Rheumatol 2001;28:1361-8.
        24. Nederhand MJ, IJzerman MJ, Hermens HJ, Baten CT, Zilvold G. Cervical muscle dysfunction in the chronic whiplash associated disorder grade II (WAD-II). Spine 2000 Aug 1;25(15):1938-43.
        25. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988.
        26. Chen WJ, Chiou WK, Lee YH, Lee MY, Chen ML. Myo-electric behavior of the trunk muscles during static load holding in healthy subjects and low back pain patients. Clin Biomech 1998;13(Suppl):S9-S15 .
        27. Chiou W-K, Lee Y-H, Chen W-J.Use of the surface EMG coactivational pattern for functional evaluation of trunk muscles in subjects with and without low-back pain. Int J Ind Ergon 1999;23:51-60.
        28. Collins GA, Cohen MJ, Naliboff BD, Schandler SL. Comparative analysis of paraspinal and frontalis EMG, heart rate and skin conductance in chronic low back pain patients and normals to various postures and stress. Scand J Rehabil Med 1982;14:39-46.
        29. Hubley-Kozey CL, Vezina MJ. Differentiating temporal electromyographic waveforms between those with chronic low back pain and healthy controls. Clin Biomech 2002;17:621-9.
        30. Kramer M, Katzmaier P, Eisele R, Ebert V, Kinzl L, Hartwig E. Surface electromyography-verified muscular damage associated with the open dorsal approach to the lumbar spine. Eur Spine J 2001;10:414-20.
        31. Leach RA, Owens EF Jr, Giesen JM. Correlates of myoelectric asymmetry detected in low back pain patients using hand-held post-style surface electromyography. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1993;16:140-9.
        32. Mooney V, Gulick J, Perlman M, Levy D, Pozos R, Leggett S, Resnick D. Relationships between myoelectric activity, strength, and MRI of lumbar extensor muscles in back pain patients and normal subjects. J Spinal Disord 1997;10:348-56.
        33. Newcomer KL, Jacobson TD, Gabriel DA, Larson DR, Brey RH, An K. Muscle activation patterns in subjects with and without low back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002;83:816-21.
        34. Oddsson LI, Giphart JE, Buijs RJ, Roy SH, Taylor HP, De Luca CJ. Development of new protocols and analysis procedures for the assessment of LBP by surface EMG techniques. J Rehabil Res Dev 1997;34:415-26.
        35. Pope MH, Aleksiev A, Panagiotacopulos ND, Lee JS, Wilder DG, Friesen K, Stielau W, Goel VK. Evaluation of low back muscle surface EMG signals using wavelets. Clin Biomech 2000;15:567-73.
        36. Rosenthal R. Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychol Bull 1995;118:183-92.
        37. Hedges LV. Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect sizes and related estimators. J Educ Statistics 1981;6:107-28.
        38. Ahern DK, Follick MJ, Council JR, Laser-Wolston N, Litchman H. Comparison of lumbar paravertebral EMG patterns in chronic low back pain patients and non-pain controls. Pain 1988;34:153-60.
        39. Ambroz C, Scott A, Ambroz A, Talbott EO. Chronic low back pain assessment using surface electromyography. J Occup Environ Med 2000;42:660-9.
        40. Arena JG, Sherman RA, Bruno GM, Young TR. Electromyographic recordings of 5 types of low back pain subjects and non-pain controls in different positions. Pain 1989;37:57-65.
        41. Arena JG, Sherman RA, Bruno GM, Young TR. Temporal stability of paraspinal electromyographic recordings in low back pain and non-pain subjects. Int J Psychophysiol 1990;9:31-7.
        42. Arena JG, Sherman RA, Bruno GM, Young TR. Electromyographic recordings of low back pain subjects and non-pain controls in six different positions: effect of pain levels. Pain 1991;45:23-8.
        43. DeGood DE, Stewart WR, Adams LE, Dale JA. Paraspinal EMG and autonomic reactivity of patients with back pain and controls to personally relevant stress. Percept Mot Skills 1994;79:1399-409.
        44. Jalovaara P, Niinimäki T, Vanharanta H. Pocket-size, portable surface EMG device in the differentiation of low back pain patients. Eur Spine J 1995;4:210-2.
        45. Lofland KR, Cassisi JE, Levin JB, Palumbo NL, Blonsky ER. The incremental validity of lumbar surface EMG, behavioral observation, and a symptom checklist in the assessment of patients with chronic low-back pain. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback 2000;25:67-78.
        46. Miller DJ. Comparison of electromyographic activity in the lumbar paraspinal muscles of subjects with and without chronic low back pain. Phys Ther 1985;65:1347-54.
        47. Ng JK-F, Richardson CA, Parnianpour M, Kippers V. EMG activity of trunk muscles and torque output during isometric axial rotation exertion : a comparison between back pain patients and matched controls. J Orthop Res 2002 ; 20:112-121.
        48. Shirado O, Ito T, Kaneda K, Strax T. Flexion-relaxation phenomenon in the back muscles: a comparative study between healthy subjects and patients with chronic low back pain. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1995;74:139-44.
        49. Sihvonen T, Partanen J, Hänninen O, Soimakallio S. Electric behavior of low back muscles during lumbar pelvic rhythm in low back pain patients and healthy controls. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1991;72:1080-7.
        50. Sihvonen T, Huttunen M, Makkonen M, Airaksinen O. Functional changes in back muscle activity correlate with pain intensity and prediction of low back pain during pregnancy. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998;79:1210-2.
        51. Alexiev AR. Some differences of the electromyographic erector spinae activity between normal subjects and low back pain patients during the generation of isometric trunk torque. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 1994;34:495-9.
        52. Capodaglio P, Nilsson J. Functional correlates in the rehabilitation of occupational low back pain. G Ital Med Lav 1996;18:35-9.
        53. Cassisi JE, Robinson ME, O’Connor P, MacMillian M. Trunk strength and lumbar paraspinal muscle activity during isometric exercise in chronic low-back pain patients and controls. Spine 1993;18:245-51.
        54. Elfving B, Dedering A, Németh G. Lumber muscle fatigue and recovery in patients with long-term back trouble – electromyography and health-related factors. Clin Biomech 2003;18:619-30.
        55. Kankaanpää M, Taimela S, Laaksonen D, Hannien O, Airksinen O. Back and hip extensor fatigability in chronic low back pain patients and controls. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1998;79:412-7.
        56. Lee DJ, Stokes MJ, Taylor RJ, Cooper RG. Electro and acoustic myography for noninvasive assessment of lumbar paraspinal muscle function. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 1992;64:199-203.
        57. Lisiński P. Surface EMG in chronic low back pain. Eur Spine J 2000;9:559-62.
        58. Lu WW, Luk KD, Cheung KM, Wong YW, Leong JC. Back muscle contraction patterns of patients with low back pain before and after rehabilitation treatment: an electromyographic evaluation. J Spinal Disord 2001;14:277-82.
        59. Pääsuke M, Johanson E, Proosa M, Ereline J, Gapeyeva H. Back extensor muscle fatigability in chronic low back pain patients and controls: Relationship between electromyogram power spectrum changes and body mass index. J Back Musculoskeletal Rehabil 2002;16:17-24.
        60. Peach JP, McGill SM. Classification of low back pain with the use of spectral electromyogram parameters. Spine 1998;23:1117-23.
        61. Robinson ME, Cassisi JE, O’Connor PD, MacMillian M. Lumbar iEMG During Isotonic Exercise : Chronic Low Back Pain Patients Versus Controls. J Spinal Disord 1992;5:8-15.
        62. Roy SH, De Luca CJ, Casavant DA. Lumbar muscle fatigue and chronic lower back pain. Spine 1989;14:992-1001.
        63. Suter E, Lindsay D. Back muscle fatigability is associated with knee extensor inhibition in subjects with low back pain. Spine 2001;26:E361-6.
        64. Klein AB, Snyder-Mackler L, Roy SH, DeLuca CJ. Comparison of spinal mobility and isometric trunk extensor forces with electromyographic spectral analysis in identifying low back pain. Phys Ther 1991;71:445-54.
        65. Roy SH, De Luca CJ, Snyder-Mackler L, Emley MS, Crenshaw RL, Lyons JP.
        Fatigue, recovery, and low back pain in varsity rowers. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1990;22:463-9.
        66. Roy SH, De Luca CJ, Emley M, Buijs RJ. Spectral electromyographic assessment of back muscles in patients with low back pain undergoing rehabilitation. Spine 1995;20:38-48.
        67. Radebold A, Cholewicki J, Panjabi M, Patel T. Muscle response pattern to sudden trunk loading in healthy individuals and in patients with chronic low back pain. Spine 2000;25:947-54.
        68. Radebold A, Cholewicki J, Polzhofer GK, Greene HS. Impaired postural control of the lumbar spine is associated with delayed muscle response times in patients with chronic idiopathic low back pain. Spine 2001;26:724-30.
        69. Leinonen V, Kankaanpää M, Luukkonen M, Hänninen O, Airaksinen O, Taimela S. Disc herniation-related back pain impairs feed-forward control of paraspinal muscles. Spine 2001;26:E367-72.
        70. Neblett R, Mayer TG, Gatchel RJ, Keeley J, Proctor T, Anagnostis C. Quantifying the lumbar flexion-relaxation phenomenon. Theory, normative data, and clinical applications. Spine 2003;28:1435-46.

  12. Badly Shaved Monkey
    April 17, 2012 at 7:45 am

    When I read the comments of chiros like Richard Lanigan and Liam Mulvany, I end up wondering whether there are any truly Scottish chiropractors anywhere.

    • Liam Mulvany
      April 17, 2012 at 11:33 am

      Scottish????

      • Badly Shaved Monkey
        April 17, 2012 at 10:49 pm

        That whistling sound? It was the joke going over the top of your head.

      • Liam Mulvany
        April 18, 2012 at 9:30 am

        Wow. Must have been hilarious.

  13. Liam Mulvany
    April 17, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    wow just checked out the chiro and osteo site that is offering this myovision that Andy Lewis is so sure that dishonest chiropractors are using. Guess what? the offer is from an osteopath. Check @wells_osteopath twitter for special offer of myovision. So Andy you wanted evidence that you
    “Le Canard Noir on April 16, 2012 at 5:04 pm
    “Andy finds examples of bad practice and assumes thats what all chiropractors do”

    Evidence?

    There it is your lack of research into a subject followed by your total bias to blame chiropractors.

  14. Liam Mulvany
    April 18, 2012 at 9:30 am

    Straw man?

    • Badly Shaved Monkey
      April 18, 2012 at 3:08 pm

      I don’t think that means what you think it means.

      Looking at the link nobby68 gave, http://www.myovision.com/products/info-on-3g-system/testimonials.

      Search the page for “chiro” 11 hits
      Search the page for “osteo” 0 hits

      Again, all I can assume is that the chiros giving testimonials were not truly Scottish. Or, perhaps you mean they’re not even chiros. I don’t think you know what you mean.

      We come back to the frequent question. How would I recognise a true chiropractor when I see one? You keep telling us what they are not and what true chiropractors don’t do, but those assertions are refuted almost as soon as someone can get their fingers to the keyboard.

      • nobby68
        April 18, 2012 at 6:41 pm

        i don’t think that means what they think it means either.

        but considering you said “There it is your lack of research into a subject followed by your total bias to blame chiropractors.”

        i played spot the osteopath on the testimonial page and could not find one hidden amongst the chiropractors.

        Is that not the kind of research you say is lacking looking for a group of people promoting a product on a manufacturuers website that all share a common occupation? or is it too ambiguous?

      • Liam mulvany
        April 18, 2012 at 7:42 pm

        Again my comment hasn’t been posted. Please re read the sub title of this post and then give me an example of the gcc not protecting the public from chiropractors. It is a straw man argument as the blog has blamed Chiros for using myovision, and it was an osteopath and then criticises the gcc, so you point to a list of chiros that use myovision but none are in the uk. Again please provide evidence that the advert in question was from a chiropractor and then provide evidence that the myovision list has uk chiropractors on that the gcc should be restricting.

  15. Liam Mulvany
    April 18, 2012 at 9:34 am

    The General Chiropractic Council has failed in protecting the public from questionable diagnostic practices.
    Sub title from this blog that was started because Andy saw an advert on the local paper and presumed it was the chiropractor. How many uk chiros can you find on that testimonial page?

  16. Muscleguy
    April 18, 2012 at 10:37 am

    Richard in accepting that chiropractors cannot agree from x-ray whether or not subluxations are present you ignore the point that presented with the same patient chiropractors also cannot agree on examination which vertebrae need ‘realigning’. So well done on not trusting x-rays but please tell me why we should trust your diagnosis on examination?

  17. Liam Mulvany
    April 18, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    Waiting for previous comment to b published. Any question bsm about chiro feel free to ask, but first unlike Andy let me know your occupation do can at least try and draw some comparisons.

  18. Liam Mulvany
    April 18, 2012 at 5:19 pm

    Liam Mulvany on April 18, 2012 at 9:34 am
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    The General Chiropractic Council has failed in protecting the public from questionable diagnostic practices.
    Sub title from this blog that was started because Andy saw an advert on the local paper and presumed it was the chiropractor. How many uk chiros can you find on that testimonial page?

  19. Liam Mulvany
    April 18, 2012 at 8:03 pm

    .[1] To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2

    You have not refuted the original position. 1 the blog attacked chiros using myovision. It was not a chiropractor. The blog accuses the gcc of not protecting the public from these dodgy diagnostics but again it was not a chiro so how is the gcc failing? Your straw man is a list of chiros who use myovision in the USA not even uk chiros. Does that explain it for you?

    Please publish Andy as this is a valid point.

  20. Badly Shaved Monkey
    April 19, 2012 at 4:44 pm

    “Your straw man is a list of chiros who use myovision in the USA not even uk chiros.”

    Obviously not Scottish, then.

  21. Liam Mulvany
    April 30, 2012 at 8:16 pm

    Talk the talk. Blog a load of crap. Point the finger get proved wrong and what? All quiet? Very disappointing.

    • Andy Lewis
      May 1, 2012 at 8:47 am

      Missed that bit about being proved wrong.

  22. Vicky
    April 30, 2012 at 10:40 pm

    You haven’t proven Andy wrong here. If you use google you can find quite a few UK chiros who are using Myovision. Unless you claim they’
    re not real Scotsmen chiros the subtitle seems justified.

Leave a Reply