I completely agree with you that double blind clinical trials with decent N that can pass publication muster are the best source of data for judging what methods work.
In order to undertake the time, effort, and expense of such studies, a given method must already be in widespread practice, be well-systematized (so it can be clearly defined what is being studied), and be perceived to be effective to a sufficient degree that it is considered worth researching.
40+ years ago none of the newer healing disciplines had such backing. Those that have been around longest have matured enough that there has been some good research now. Massage Therapy has been clinically proven to reduce muscular tension and improve circulation. Client-Centered-Therapy, Rational-Emotive Therapy, and Cognitive Behavioral therapy were all developed mid-1900s and have been clinically proven to be more beneficial than just talking to someone who listens. Chiropractic Medicine and Acupuncture have had mixed research results, though in some narrow areas are well-proven -- for example Acupuncture is proven to reduce bed sores better than any other intervention.
Rubenfeld Synergy is earlier in its evolution than all of the above. There's practitioners in most states, and in some areas there's enough activity in the field that some research initiatives are starting up. I'd hope to see double-blind trials with decent N published in 10-20 years.
In the meantime, it'll thrive or die out on the strength of individual judgments about whether it works. :-)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: A bit off-topic but... My question is always the same:
Date: 2009-11-05 05:30 pm (UTC)In order to undertake the time, effort, and expense of such studies, a given method must already be in widespread practice, be well-systematized (so it can be clearly defined what is being studied), and be perceived to be effective to a sufficient degree that it is considered worth researching.
40+ years ago none of the newer healing disciplines had such backing. Those that have been around longest have matured enough that there has been some good research now. Massage Therapy has been clinically proven to reduce muscular tension and improve circulation. Client-Centered-Therapy, Rational-Emotive Therapy, and Cognitive Behavioral therapy were all developed mid-1900s and have been clinically proven to be more beneficial than just talking to someone who listens. Chiropractic Medicine and Acupuncture have had mixed research results, though in some narrow areas are well-proven -- for example Acupuncture is proven to reduce bed sores better than any other intervention.
Rubenfeld Synergy is earlier in its evolution than all of the above. There's practitioners in most states, and in some areas there's enough activity in the field that some research initiatives are starting up. I'd hope to see double-blind trials with decent N published in 10-20 years.
In the meantime, it'll thrive or die out on the strength of individual judgments about whether it works. :-)