LyingNCT01066312
The Accuracy of Manual Muscle Testing
An observational study of Lying, run by Parker Research Institute at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
Manual Muscle Testing (MMT) practiced by over a million practitioners worldwide. However, it's accuracy under varying levels of blindness has not yet been considered. This study will test this accuracy. Study Hypothesis: MMT can accurately distinguish congruent from incongruent statements. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 65 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Lying
- How many people
- 160 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- Mar 2010to Jun 2013
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 65 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: 1. Practitioenrs - Healthcare providers - healthy adults 2. Testees - Healthy adults with no prior experience with MMT
Who may be able to join
- Practitioners
- health care provider
- aged between 18 and 65 years old
- healthy
- fluent in English
- Testees
Show all 9Show fewer
- aged between 18 and 65 years old
- healthy
- fluent in English
Who cannot join
- Practitioners
- a current physical disability or injury of either upper extremity
- Blind, deaf or mute
- Testees
- a current physical disability or injury of either upper extremity
- Prior experience with MMT
Show all 9Show fewer
- Blind, deaf or mute
- are known to the Practitioner
- NOTE: For this study, no compensation is possible.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Investigating the Accuracy of Manual Muscle Testing for Distinguishing Congruent From Incongruent Statements Under Varying Levels of Blinding
Manual Muscle Testing (MMT) practiced by over a million practitioners worldwide. However, it's accuracy under varying levels of blindness has not yet been considered. This study will test this accuracy.
Study Hypothesis: MMT can accurately distinguish congruent from incongruent statements. Also, the accuracy of MMT is positively correlated with practitioner experience.
Read the detailed description
Manual Muscle Testing is a non-invasive assessment tool used by millions of healthcare practitioners worldwide for a variety of purposes. First described in the literature by Lovett and Wight in 1915, MMT was originally used to assess muscular weakness in polio victims. In 1949, physiotherapists Kendall and Kendall refined MMT into an art and science with the publication of their benchmark text, Muscles: Testing and Function. This type of MMT is still used today to assess neuromuscular integrity.
In the 1960's, a different use for MMT was described by Dr. George Goodheart. In Goodheart's technique, called Applied Kinesiology (AK), MMT is used to evaluate a variety of additional functions of the body, apart from neuromuscular integrity. From Goodheart's work, many different techniques have emerged which use this second type of MMT. Moreover, it is estimated that over one million healthcare practitioners worldwide use this type of MMT: medical doctors, dentists, chiropractors, osteopaths, physiotherapists, other health professionals - plus even some lay-persons.
As a result of this divergence, there exists two very different forms of MMT: (1) orthopaedic muscle testing to quantify muscle strength and asses neurological integrity, and (2) the other type of muscle testing - which called be called "muscle response testing" which is used to obtain additional information about a patient. What that information is depends upon the MMT system being used and what information is sought. It is this latter form of MMT that this proposed study will investigate. Therefore, for the remainder of this application, the term "MMT" will be used to refer only to the second type ("muscle response testing").
The basic premise of MMT is that when there is some aberrant nervous system input to a muscle, it is less likely to be able to resist an external force. During a manual muscle test, an external force is applied to one muscle or group of muscles which at first causes an isometric then an eccentric contraction. Consequently, the muscle being tested is labelled "weak" or "strong" based on its ability to resist this external force.
A number of different techniques use MMT to test the body's physiological response to semantic stimuli, which may have both cognitive and emotional components. Monti et al. found that a MMT following congruent statements yielded significantly different results compared to a MMT following incongruent statements. A congruent statement is one that the person believes is true. An incongruent statement is one the person believes is false. The study by Monti et al. used self-referential statements similar to this study design, however they used statements such as, "My name is (insert one's name)". One criticism of using this type of self-referential statements is that in all likelihood both the muscle tester and the muscle testee know the verity of the statement, therefore, they are both unblinded, which may have introduced biased. While it is generally accepted by those who use this assessment tool that some bias exists in MMT, little is currently known about the degree of this bias. Therefore the main objective of this study is to investigate the accuracy of MMT to distinguish congruent from incongruent statements under varying degrees of blindness.
A further aim of this study are to explore if practitioner experience correlate with MMT accuracy. Caruso and Leisman reported greater MMT accuracy in experienced practitioners compared to inexperienced practitioners. Therefore, this study will test the reproducibility of these findings.
There will be two groups of participants selected for this study: (1) Practitioners, and (2) Testees - where the Practitioner will perform MMT on the Testee as the Testee speaks a statement. The Testee will know if s/he is speaking a true or false statement. However, for some statements, the Practitioner will be blind to the verity of the statement.
Results will be analysed for percent correct - that is, percent of muscle tests which accurately predicted the verity of the spoken statement.
- Conditions
- Lying
- Keywords
- Muscle testing, Kinesiology, Muscles, Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Practitioner Experience, This study is actually not a randomised controlled trial,, but an assessment of diagnostic test accuracy. We will be, looking at the accuracy of MMT to distinguish congruent from, incongruent statements under varying levels of blinding.
- Medical subject headings
- Deception
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners | Healthcare practitioners who either use, have used or do not use MMT in practice | |
| Testees | Healthy adults with no experience with MMT |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Percent correct
Measured: 1 hour
Secondary outcomes (1)
Practitioner Experience
Measured: 1 hour
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted10 Feb 2010 (estimated)
- Study startMar 2010
- Primary completionJun 2013
- Study completionJun 2013
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (6)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for LyingStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Other
- Enrolment
- 160 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Parker Research Institute
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Dr. Anne M. Jensen, Parker Research Institute
- Investigators
- Anne M Jensen, DC, MS, MSc, Principal investigator, Parker Research Institute
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01066312
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- MMT Study
- Status last verified
- Jun 2017
- First submitted
- 9 Feb 2010
- Last updated
- 19 Jun 2017
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Publications
Caruso W, Leisman G. A force/displacement analysis of muscle testing. Percept Mot Skills. 2000 Oct;91(2):683-92. doi: 10.2466/pms.2000.91.2.683.
PubMed 11065332Caruso W, Leisman G. The clinical utility of force/displacement analysis of muscle testing in applied kinesiology. Int J Neurosci. 2001;106(3-4):147-57. doi: 10.3109/00207450109149745.
PubMed 11264916Ludtke R, Kunz B, Seeber N, Ring J. Test-retest-reliability and validity of the Kinesiology muscle test. Complement Ther Med. 2001 Sep;9(3):141-5. doi: 10.1054/ctim.2001.0455.
PubMed 11926427Pollard H, Lakay B, Tucker F, Watson B, Bablis P. Interexaminer reliability of the deltoid and psoas muscle test. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2005 Jan;28(1):52-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2004.12.008.
PubMed 15726035Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, Lijmer JG, Moher D, Rennie D, de Vet HC; STARD Group. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Fam Pract. 2004 Feb;21(1):4-10. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmh103.
PubMed 14760036Jensen AM, Stevens RJ, Burls AJ. Estimating the accuracy of muscle response testing: two randomised-order blinded studies. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2016 Nov 30;16(1):492. doi: 10.1186/s12906-016-1416-2.
PubMed 27903263
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 19 Jun 2017. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Investigating the Accuracy of Manual Muscle Testing for Distinguishing Congruent From Incongruent Statements Under Varying Levels of Blinding
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01066312
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- MMT Study
- Conditions
- Lying
- Keywords
- Muscle testing, Kinesiology, Muscles, Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Practitioner Experience, This study is actually not a randomised controlled trial,, but an assessment of diagnostic test accuracy. We will be, looking at the accuracy of MMT to distinguish congruent from
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 160 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Parker Research InstituteUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Mar 2010 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Jun 2013 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jun 2013 (actual)
- First posted
- 10 Feb 2010 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Manual Muscle Testing (MMT) practiced by over a million practitioners worldwide. However, it's accuracy under varying levels of blindness has not yet been considered. This study will test this accuracy.
Study Hypothesis: MMT can accurately distinguish congruent from incongruent statements. Also, the accuracy of MMT is positively correlated with practitioner experience.
Detailed description
Manual Muscle Testing is a non-invasive assessment tool used by millions of healthcare practitioners worldwide for a variety of purposes. First described in the literature by Lovett and Wight in 1915, MMT was originally used to assess muscular weakness in polio victims. In 1949, physiotherapists Kendall and Kendall refined MMT into an art and science with the publication of their benchmark text, Muscles: Testing and Function. This type of MMT is still used today to assess neuromuscular integrity.
In the 1960's, a different use for MMT was described by Dr. George Goodheart. In Goodheart's technique, called Applied Kinesiology (AK), MMT is used to evaluate a variety of additional functions of the body, apart from neuromuscular integrity. From Goodheart's work, many different techniques have emerged which use this second type of MMT. Moreover, it is estimated that over one million healthcare practitioners worldwide use this type of MMT: medical doctors, dentists, chiropractors, osteopaths, physiotherapists, other health professionals - plus even some lay-persons.
As a result of this divergence, there exists two very different forms of MMT: (1) orthopaedic muscle testing to quantify muscle strength and asses neurological integrity, and (2) the other type of muscle testing - which called be called "muscle response testing" which is used to obtain additional information about a patient. What that information is depends upon the MMT system being used and what information is sought. It is this latter form of MMT that this proposed study will investigate. Therefore, for the remainder of this application, the term "MMT" will be used to refer only to the second type ("muscle response testing").
The basic premise of MMT is that when there is some aberrant nervous system input to a muscle, it is less likely to be able to resist an external force. During a manual muscle test, an external force is applied to one muscle or group of muscles which at first causes an isometric then an eccentric contraction. Consequently, the muscle being tested is labelled "weak" or "strong" based on its ability to resist this external force.
A number of different techniques use MMT to test the body's physiological response to semantic stimuli, which may have both cognitive and emotional components. Monti et al. found that a MMT following congruent statements yielded significantly different results compared to a MMT following incongruent statements. A congruent statement is one that the person believes is true. An incongruent statement is one the person believes is false. The study by Monti et al. used self-referential statements similar to this study design, however they used statements such as, "My name is (insert one's name)". One criticism of using this type of self-referential statements is that in all likelihood both the muscle tester and the muscle testee know the verity of the statement, therefore, they are both unblinded, which may have introduced biased. While it is generally accepted by those who use this assessment tool that some bias exists in MMT, little is currently known about the degree of this bias. Therefore the main objective of this study is to investigate the accuracy of MMT to distinguish congruent from incongruent statements under varying degrees of blindness.
A further aim of this study are to explore if practitioner experience correlate with MMT accuracy. Caruso and Leisman reported greater MMT accuracy in experienced practitioners compared to inexperienced practitioners. Therefore, this study will test the reproducibility of these findings.
There will be two groups of participants selected for this study: (1) Practitioners, and (2) Testees - where the Practitioner will perform MMT on the Testee as the Testee speaks a statement. The Testee will know if s/he is speaking a true or false statement. However, for some statements, the Practitioner will be blind to the verity of the statement.
Results will be analysed for percent correct - that is, percent of muscle tests which accurately predicted the verity of the spoken statement.
Study design
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Other
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners | – | –Healthcare practitioners who either use, have used or do not use MMT in practice |
| Testees | – | –Healthy adults with no experience with MMT |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 65 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- 1. Practitioenrs - Healthcare providers - healthy adults 2. Testees - Healthy adults with no prior experience with MMT
Key inclusion criteria (9 listed)
- Practitioners
- Testees
Key exclusion criteria (9 listed)
- Practitioners
- Testees
- NOTE: For this study, no compensation is possible.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
Percent correct
Time frame: 1 hour
1 secondary outcome
Practitioner Experience
Time frame: 1 hour
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 19 Jun 2017.
- Background: PubMed 11065332Caruso W, Leisman G. A force/displacement analysis of muscle testing. Percept Mot Skills. 2000 Oct;91(2):683-92. doi: 10.2466/pms.2000.91.2.683.
- Background: PubMed 11264916Caruso W, Leisman G. The clinical utility of force/displacement analysis of muscle testing in applied kinesiology. Int J Neurosci. 2001;106(3-4):147-57. doi: 10.3109/00207450109149745.
- Background: PubMed 11926427Ludtke R, Kunz B, Seeber N, Ring J. Test-retest-reliability and validity of the Kinesiology muscle test. Complement Ther Med. 2001 Sep;9(3):141-5. doi: 10.1054/ctim.2001.0455.
- Background: PubMed 15726035Pollard H, Lakay B, Tucker F, Watson B, Bablis P. Interexaminer reliability of the deltoid and psoas muscle test. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2005 Jan;28(1):52-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2004.12.008.
- Background: PubMed 14760036Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, Lijmer JG, Moher D, Rennie D, de Vet HC; STARD Group. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Fam Pract. 2004 Feb;21(1):4-10. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmh103.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 27903263Jensen AM, Stevens RJ, Burls AJ. Estimating the accuracy of muscle response testing: two randomised-order blinded studies. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2016 Nov 30;16(1):492. doi: 10.1186/s12906-016-1416-2.
Related trials for Lying
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Positioning in RT - Supine vs. Upright
Cancer
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Nurse-Directed Therapeutic Positioning in Children With Pneumonia
Pediatric Pneumonia
Not yet recruiting
Bedside Assessment of Right Ventricular Output Lying in Prone Or Supine
Right Ventricular Function, Prone Position
Recruiting
Supine vs. Prone Mini-PCNL in Children
Kidney Calculi (or Renal Calculi / Nephrolithiasis), Supine Mini Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy
Recruiting
Effect of Raised Head of the Bed on Lying Blood Pressure in Autonomic Failure
Supine Hypertension, Autonomic Failure
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Anne M Jensen, DC, MS, MSc principal investigator
Parker Research Institute
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Lying, run by Parker Research Institute at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 9 inclusion and 9 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 19 Jun 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Percent correct (time frame: 1 hour). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT01066312, which also lists 6 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 19 Jun 2017.