This study aimed to evaluate the number of craniosacral therapy sessions that can be helpful to obtain a resolution of the symptoms of infantile colic and to observe if there are any differences in the evolution obtained by the groups that received a different number of Craniosacral Therapy sessions at 24 days of treatment, compared with the control group which did not received any treatment.
Fifty-eight infants with colic were randomized into two groups:
- 29 babies in the control group received no treatment;
- babies in the experimental group received 1-3 sessions of craniosacral therapy (CST) until symptoms were resolved.
Evaluations were performed until day 24 of the study. Crying hours served as the primary outcome measure. The secondary outcome measures were the hours of sleep and the severity, measured by an Infantile Colic Severity Questionnaire (ICSQ).
Statistically significant differences were observed in favor of the experimental group compared to the control group on day 24 in all outcome measures:
- crying hours (mean difference = 2.94, at 95 %CI = 2.30-3.58; p < 0.001);
- hours of sleep (mean difference = 2.80; at 95 %CI = – 3.85 to – 1.73; p < 0.001);
- colic severity (mean difference = 17.24; at 95 %CI = 14.42-20.05; p < 0.001).
Also, the differences between the groups ≤ 2 CST sessions (n = 19), 3 CST sessions (n = 10), and control (n = 25) were statistically significant on day 24 of the treatment for crying, sleep and colic severity outcomes (p < 0.001).
The authors concluded that babies with infantile colic may obtain a complete resolution of symptoms on day 24 by receiving 2 or 3 CST sessions compared to the control group, which did not receive any treatment.
Why do SCAM researchers so often have no problem leaving the control group of patients in clinical trials without any treatment at all, while shying away from administering a placebo? Is it because they enjoy being the laughingstock of the science community? Probably not.
I suspect the reason might be that often they know that their treatments are placebos and that their trials would otherwise generate negative findings. Whatever the reasons, this new study demonstrates three things many of us already knew:
- Colic in babies always resolves on its own but can be helped by a placebo response (e.g. via the non-blinded parents), by holding the infant, and by paying attention to the child.
- Flawed trials lend themselves to drawing the wrong conclusions.
- Craniosacral therapy is not biologically plausible and most likely not effective beyond placebo.
3 Responses to A new study suggests that craniosacral therapy produces complete resolution of symptoms of infantile colic
Leave a Reply to Edzard Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Infantile colic per the NHS website is “ All babies cry, but your baby may have colic if they cry more than 3 hours a day, 3 days a week for at least 1 week but are otherwise healthy”
So if your baby cries a lot but is otherwise healthy it has colic. Key point about being otherwise healthy of course. What causes an otherwise healthy baby to be colicky – who knows? Possibly for some babies just the transition from life in utero to life ex utero.
It is worrying for parents of course, not least the way their own sleep is disturbed, but normally resolves with time. If you were to ask me whether gently and respectfully stroking your infant might help I would say possibly. So I am not surprised that the treatment group here did better than the non treatment group. There were having more cuddles. So I think the study should really conclude – cuddling your baby may soothe it down.
agreed
EE: Colic in babies always resolves on its own
colic may not be as benign as some think
“Children with migraine were more likely to have experienced infantile colic than those without migraine (72.6% vs 26.5%; odds ratio [OR], 6.61 [95% CI, 4.38-10.00]; P < .001),…”
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1679399