Shiatsu has been mentioned here before (see for instance here, here and here). It is one of those alternative therapies for which a plethora of therapeutic claims are being made in the almost total absence of reliable evidence. This is why I am delighted each time a new study emerges.
This proof of concept study explored the feasibility of ‘hand self-shiatsu’ as an intervention to promote sleep onset and continuity for young adults with SRC. It employed a prospective case-series design, where participants, athletes who have suffered from concussion, act as their own controls. Baseline and follow-up data included standardized self-reported assessment tools and sleep actigraphy. Seven athletes, aged between 18 and 25 years, participated. Although statistically significant improvement in actigraphy sleep scores between baseline and follow-up was not achieved, metrics for sleep quality and daytime fatigue showed significant improvement.
The authors concluded from these data that these findings support the hypothesis that ‘hand self-shiatsu has the potential to improve sleep and reduce daytime fatigue in young postconcussion athletes. This pilot study provides guidance to refine research protocols and lays a foundation for further, large-sample, controlled studies.
How very disappointing! If this was truly meant to be a pilot study, it should not mention findings of clinical improvement at all. I suspect that the authors labelled it ‘a pilot study’ only when they realised that it was wholly inadequate. I also suspect that the study did not yield the result they had hoped for (a significant improvement in actigraphy sleep scores), and thus they included the metrics for sleep quality and daytime fatigue in the abstract.
In any case, even a pilot study of just 7 patients is hardly worth writing home about. And the remark that participants acted as their own controls is a new level of obfuscation: there were no controls, and the results are based on before/after comparisons. Thus none of the outcomes can be attributed to shiatsu; more likely, they are due to the natural history of the condition, placebo effects, concomitant treatments, social desirability etc.
What sort of journal publishes such drivel that can only have the effect of giving a bad name to clinical research? The Journal of Integrative Medicine (JIM) is a peer-reviewed journal sponsored by Shanghai Association of Integrative Medicine and Shanghai Changhai Hospital, China. It is a continuation of the Journal of Chinese Integrative Medicine (JCIM), which was established in 2003 and published in Chinese language. Since 2013, JIM has been published in English language. They state that the editorial board is committed to publishing high-quality papers on integrative medicine... I consider this as a bad joke! More likely, this journal is little more than an organ for popularising TCM propaganda in the West.
And which publisher hosts such a journal?
Elsevier
What a disgrace!
4 Responses to Shiatsu: more rubbish research from a rubbish journal and an increasingly suspect publisher
Leave a Reply to Frank van der Kooy Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Well, if you look at some of the names listed on the Advisory/Editorial board then it should come as no surprise;
Claudia Witt, Nicola Robinson, Alan Bensoussan etc
Et tu Ted Kaptchuck? Mr Placebo Magic-Man himself. Small incestuous world it is.
Here you can read the Collected Reports of The Shiatsu Therapy Research Lab (the official Namikoshi style recognized by the Ministry of Health, integrated in the National Health System) made between 1998-2012 and 2013-2017 namely at the Japan Shiatsu College from Tokyo, JAPAN -> http://e.shiatsu.ac.jp/research/
THANKS
I cannot find a single paper that comes anywhere near a proof that shiatsu [and not a placebo-effect] is effective in the treatment of a single human condition. plearhaps you can point me to such a study?