title: Comparison of bioenergetic synchronization technique and customary chiropractic care for older adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain.
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.
authors.affiliation: Cleveland Chiropractic College, 6401 Rockhill Road, Kansas City, MO 64131, USA. hawkcheryl@aol.com
authors.forename: Cheryl
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Hawk
authors.forename: Ronald L
authors.initials: RL
authors.lastname: Rupert
authors.forename: Makasha
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Colonvega
authors.forename: Jennell
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Boyd
authors.forename: Stephanie
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Hall
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D002684:Chiropractic / Q000379:methods*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D020393:Manipulation, Spinal; D008875:Middle Aged; D026441:Mind-Body Therapies; D009141:Musculoskeletal System / Q000503:physiopathology*; D010146:Pain / Q000209:etiology; D059408:Pain Management; D010147:Pain Measurement; D010349:Patient Compliance; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D016896:Treatment Outcome