>Your opinion please, relative to different mfg. of SEMG, are they all
>doing the same thing?
Well, I don't have a public opinion regarding the manufacturers, per say.
I used the Insight for several years and was very happy with it. There are other companies making SEMG's that are excellent and most if not all of the "BAD BOY" companies involved in the SEMG mudslinging wars a few years ago have died out.
>Is there a sufficient database of evidence to validate the procedure?
Depends on what you call sufficient. There are not many controled clinical trials or double blinded studies, however there are many, many positive papers in the chiropractic and medical and technical journals. You should do a grateful med or medline search for the most recent.
>Will this procedure help the Dr. by directing his care or differentiating conditions?
Absolutely, but you must learn to use it as an adjunctive component to the overall clinical picture. AND use it correctly, meaning ~ not to make money or as a patient compliance tool.
>Do Dr.s Gentempo, Kent et. al. know what they are talking about?
Yes, I beleieve that they do, and they have argueably become the most published authors in the field.
Are they creditable sources of info?
They are manufacturers and as such, their credibility has been somewhat diminished. However, there are precedents for manufacturers to be one of the few espousing their products, when very few others have become involved with the modality.
I remember many years ago, when I was in college, Charlie Lindquist was the only person in the Los Angeles area who was competent enough and cared about chiropractic enough to come and teach us physical therapy so we could get through the boards.
This did not diminish his teaching ability at all. He was great. He was also courteous and did not push his product. He talked about his competitors in a postive way and pointed out benefits of their devices as well.
I know Chris Kent and Pat Gentempo personally, and have seminar'd with them for many years. There dedication to "subluxation based" chiropractic is well known. If you are a subluxation based practitioner, you might do well to learn from them.
>>I would consider SEMG for use in my office but I don't need another gizmo (remember plethysmographs?) cluttering up my office, wasting my time and my patient's money.
I call your gizzmo's "boat anchors", of which I have had many. I do not consider SEMG's gizmos. They are, when used correctly, very good tools for demonstrating compensating biomechanics, areas still needing treatment, areas you might otherwise miss. Patients comply well to the procedure and are generally impressed with the results, and I consider SEMG and excellent outcome assessment tool.
You need to be trained in SEMG's appropriate utilization and interpretation and not use it as a money making profit center, which is what many of the manufacturers have claimed for years,
This is the same pitfall as x-ray digitizing manufacturers, comparative muscle testers and thermography. It is sad, because these vary tools if they had been used correctly are "spot-on", and can go a long way in demonstratic chiropractics effectiveness.
Unfortuantely I see many trade ads from manufacturers blazen with their pictures all over the trade journals today, and in most all of them, the profiteering of their procedures is cardinal to their advertisements. This looks great in courts when you are under cross. ("Doctor, is this the device you used on Mrs. Jones?" "Isn't it true that you just do it for the money like it says in THIS ad?")
Most of the rhetoric and anti-technology sentiment we all observe comes from the days of the insurance gravy train, vendor wars and field practitioner ignorance about the actual use of the procedures.
Botton line, get trained, make an informed purchase decision, use it correctly and then you'll be fine.
>>Sorry for the rant.
No problem and good luck to you in your continuing development as a doctor of chiropractic.
Dr. C
Quick-Link to Diagnostics Section Chiro-Legal Home Org Home