Reflexology

From SkepticWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Definition

The premise of reflexology is that it is possible to diagnose diseases by examining the feet, and to then cure these diseases by massaging the feet. Each organ of the body is held to correspond to some part of one of the feet, allowing the practitioner to pinpoint the disease and the area to be massaged.

Variants include ear and hand reflexology.


[edit] Origins

Reflexology was developed in the 1930s by an American woman, Eunice Ingham, out of an earlier, more complicated form of quackery known as zone therapy. She publicised her ideas in her 1938 book, Stories the Feet Can Tell. She toured America extensively speaking to promote her ideas.

Ingham's nephew, Dwight Byers, founded the International Institute of Reflexogy to promote and continue her work: it is still in business.


[edit] Quotations

"If you're feeling out of kilter,
Don't know why or what about,
Let your feet reveal the answer,
Find the sore spot, WORK IT OUT!"
--- Eunice Ingham


[edit] Discussion

There seems to be no evidence in the scientific literature that there are any distinct advantages of reflexology over any other form of foot massage.

One or two studies in the scientific literature (e.g. Olsen and Flocco) seem to give some support for reflexology, but are flawed by a tendency to compare reflexology against "placebo reflexology", meaning a massage given by a trained reflexologist instructed to do (and knowing that she's doing) the wrong thing according to the principles of reflexology. The methodological problems that this invites were uncovered in a study by Brygge et al:

"Ten weeks of active or simulated (placebo) reflexology given by an experienced reflexologist, were compared in an otherwise blind, controlled trial of 20+20 outpatients with asthma. Subjective scores (describing symptoms, beta2-inhalations and quality of life) and also bronchial sensitivity to histamine improved on both regimens, but no differences were found between groups receiving active or placebo reflexology. However, a trend in favour of reflexology became significant when a supplementary analysis of symptom diaries was carried out. It was accompanied by a significant pattern compatible with subconscious unblinding, in that patients tended to guess which treatment they had been receiving."

Of course, a placebo is not a placebo unless it successfully fools the patient.

The performance of reflexologists is also dismal when it comes to diagnosis:

"Eighteen adults with one or more of six specified conditions were identified from primary care records. Two reflexologists, who were blinded to the patients' conditions and monitored, then examined each patient's feet and rated the probability that each of the six conditions was present... There is little evidence that the distribution of ratings vary with the status of the condition. Receiver operating curves suggest that this diagnostic method is very poor at distinguishing between the presence and absence of conditions. Inter-rater reliability (kappa) scores were very low, providing no evidence of agreement between the examiners."

In short, not only did the results of these two reflexologists disagree with reality: they also disagreed with each other, despite supposedly using the same diagnostic technique.


[edit] Related Topics

[edit] References

Brygge T, Heinig JH, Collins P, Ronborg S, Gehrchen PM, Hilden J, Heegaard S, Poulsen LK. Reflexology and bronchial asthma, Respiratory Medicine 95(3) March 2001

Oleson T, Flocco W. Randomized controlled study of premenstrual symptoms treated with ear, hand, and foot reflexology. Obstetric Gynecololgy 82(6) December 1993

Tovey, P. A single-blind trial of reflexology for irritable bowel syndrome, British Journal of General Practice 52, 2002

White AR, Williamson J, Hart A, Ernst E. A blinded investigation into the accuracy of reflexology charts. Complement. Ther Med. 8(3) 2002

Williamson J, White A, Hart A, Ernst E. Randomised controlled trial of reflexology for menopausal symptoms, British Journal of Gynaecology. 109(9) September 2002


[edit] Comments

Personal tools