The control group of patients were given a regular full body massage (not specific to the pelvis) and one group received myofascial pelvic floor PT. Blinding was not successful in the study so patients were aware they were in the control group (massage) and not having the correct treatment.
http://www.internalmedicinenews.com/new ... 7c641.html
At first glance it appears positive as the title for the article is
Myofascial Physical Therapy Appears Beneficial in Patients With Interstitial Cystitis.
As the second paragraph states
So 59% people felt moderately or markedly improved after PT ( I always find it interesting these 2 categories are lumped together.) To asses this patients were asked this question.Among 81 women with interstitial cystitis and moderate to severe pain or urgency, global response assessment (GRA) rates at 12 weeks were 59% with myofascial physical therapy versus 26% with global massage therapy consisting of full-body Western massage.
As compared to when you started the study, how would you rate your overall symptoms now?”
1. markedly worse
2. moderately worse
3. slightly worse
4. the same
5. slightly improved
6. moderately improved
7. markedly improved
Participants who indicated they were 6: “moderately” or 7: “markedly” improved were considered intervention responders. This question is referred to in the study as the global response assessment.
So far so good.
However then we have this paragraph.
The language is couched in scientific terms as to make it I suspect as unintelligible as possible.The secondary end points did not confirm the primary results, Ms. Kotarinos said. The MPT arm had greater mean changes in symptom scores than did the GMT arm on the Interstitial Cystitis Symptom Index (-3.2 vs. -2.2), Interstitial Cystitis Problem Index (-3.6 vs. -2.4), Likert Pain scale (-2.2 vs. -1.5), and Likert Urge Scale (-2.1 vs. -1.4), but the differences did not reach statistical significance.
What it means is that for symptoms of pain , urgency and frequency myofascial/trigger point treatment was found not to have a significantly greater affect than a regular full body massage.
Yes the patients reported PT to have a greater effect than massage generally but when the researchers asked patients to be specific on matters such as pain levels ( marked from 1 to 10) , frequency and urgency no significant difference between massage and PT was found. Massage and PT showed pretty much the same improvement when it came to this. Bear in mind the massage treatment was not even confined to the pelvis, it was full body massage.
I fully expect this nugget of information to drop like a stone in the pelvic pain world as it is not exactly good news for myofascial physical therapy.