Disentangling manual muscle testing and Applied Kinesiology: critique and reinterpretation of a literature review.
Cuthbert and Goodheart recently published a narrative review on the reliability and validity of manual muscle testing (MMT) in the Journal. The authors should be recognized for their effort to synthesize this vast body of literature. However, the review contains critical errors in the search methods, inclusion criteria, quality assessment, validity definitions, study interpretation, literature synthesis, generalizability of study findings, and conclusion formulation that merit a reconsideration of the authors' findings. Most importantly, a misunderstanding of the review could easily arise because the authors did not distinguish the general use of muscle strength testing from the specific applications that distinguish the Applied Kinesiology (AK) chiropractic technique. The article makes the fundamental error of implying that the reliability and validity of manual muscle testing lends some degree of credibility to the unique diagnostic procedures of AK. The purpose of this commentary is to provide a critical appraisal of the review, suggest conclusions consistent with the literature both reviewed and omitted, and extricate conclusions that can be made about AK in particular from those that can be made about MMT. When AK is disentangled from standard orthopedic muscle testing, the few studies evaluating unique AK procedures either refute or cannot support the validity of AK procedures as diagnostic tests. The evidence to date does not support the use of MMT for the diagnosis of organic disease or pre/subclinical conditions.
Haas
Mitchell
M
Western States Chiropractic College, Portland, OR 97230, USA. mhaas@wschiro.edu
Cooperstein
Robert
R
Peterson
David
D
JAMA. 1992 May 20;267(19):2638-44
1573753
Wien Med Wochenschr. 2005 Feb;155(3-4):59-64
15791778
BMJ. 2005 May 7;330(7499):1053
15817526
JAMA. 1994 Jul 20;272(3):234-7
8022043
J Altern Complement Med. 2004 Aug;10(4):643-50
15353020
Spine J. 2004 May-Jun;4(3):335-56
15125860
Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2003 Jun;3(3):217-21
12840706
JAMA. 1994 Mar 2;271(9):703-7
8309035
BMJ. 2003 Jan 4;326(7379):41-4
12511463
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Jun 1;28(11):1091-6; discussion 1096
12782973
Arch Intern Med. 1996 Mar 25;156(6):661-6
8629879
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1996 Jun;19(5):310-6
8792320
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1997 Jun;20(5):331-7
9200049
Acad Radiol. 1995 Mar;2 Suppl 1:S37-47; discussion S65-9, S83
9419704
JAMA. 1999 Jun 2;281(21):2029-34
10359392
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1999 May;22(4):254-9
10367763
Int J Neurosci. 1999 Mar;97(1-2):61-76
10681118
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2001 Sep;24(7):457-66
11562654
Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd. 2001 Dec;8(6):336-44
11799301
Complement Ther Med. 2001 Sep;9(3):141-5
11926427
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2006 Jan-Feb;24(1):93-102
16539827
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2006 Nov-Dec;29(9):695-706
17142164
Chiropr Osteopat. 2007;15:4
17341308
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1991 Mar-Apr;14(3):199-208
2045731
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1990 May;13(4):190-4
2351880
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1988 Jun 4;296(6636):1573-4
3135014
J Am Diet Assoc. 1988 Jun;88(6):698-704
3372923
CMAJ. 1986 Mar 15;134(6):587-94
3512062
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1983 Jun;6(2):87-90
6619675
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1984 Jun;7(2):99-104
6747487
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1982 Dec;5(4):179-82
6891715
J Prosthet Dent. 1981 Mar;45(3):321-3
6938675
J Clin Epidemiol. 1995 Jan;48(1):119-30; discussion 131-2
7853038
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1994 Mar-Apr;17(3):141-8
8006528
JAMA. 1994 Feb 2;271(5):389-91
8283589