The next procedure I became intrigued with was computerized comparative muscle testing. At the time there were only two of these devices available. one an inflatable air bag on a floor stand (CMT 1000) and the other a piston driven plate (DMG).
I felt that now that I had found a reliable, clinically useful tool in x-ray digitizing, a functional assessment device that could measure comparative strengths one side of the body to the other as well as between antagonists muscle groups would give me a "wrap" to my diagnosis. Well, as will become obvious from the rest of the paper, my "wrap" turned into the need for several other devices, but none the less, I had a great start in objectifying my patients need for care, and I had a much better handle on what to do, when to do it and how well I did.
I will not dwell on the actual technique of muscle testing with or without a computer in this paper. As with other objective devices, when performed properly with calabratable equipment, the findings can be relied upon, are graphic and provide wonderful file documentation concerning a patients status.
So now I could correlate a subluxation on x-ray with a supplied muscle group in an extremity. Correlations were high and I was asked to start teaching at seminars as my results invariably started ending up in the worst place they could for the era, high insurance settlements for PI patients. I think this in it's own right is the downfall of most of the technologies I describe. They were devastating to a carrier in a court of law.