If you could elaborate and provide a reference for the reliabilty and validity of manual muscle testing I would appreciate it. If you could provide me with a research article for the reliability of identifying trigger points, validity of trigger points and finally a research article that suggests treating ‘sore spots’ improves outcomes I would also appreciate it.
Scientific? Have you read the research in rehabilitation? Less than 10% of special tests for orthopedic conditions have any clinical utility based on sensitivities/specificities/Likelihood ratios and satisfactory QUADAS scoring.
So to answer your statement; manual muscle testing and ‘sore spot’ assessment provide little to the clinical picture let alone improving patient outcomes…[/quote]
You are kidding right? What is your definition of scientific? I define it as stating a hypothesis with variable but consistent and reliable outcomes, performing objective and universally applicable procedures, then producing consistent and verifiable results. As objective, universal, and consistent as human beings can be, all of your requests can be, and have been fulfilled meeting those requirements . We are not talking polarity therapy, disc bulges, or waving crystals here.
Go to Pubmed and do your own research, there is plenty of evidence of clinical evaluation and identification on TrP’s as well as methods treating them. Read Dr. Travell, M.D. The manuals she spent decades researching, compiling and testing are available at amazon. Read David j. Magee’s orthopedic assesment manuals. I mean really come on. You are not the guy who thinks Janda was a quack?
By the way I am not interested in debating here, it is not me you are debating. You can waste your time arguing against decades and thousands of hours of clinical practice with yourself, or whoever else it appears to have an agenda against. Good luck.