Polarity Therapy

Our assessments of evidence for each medical benefit fall into one of these categories:

• Strong evidence: consistent, significant effects in several large (or at least one very large) well designed clinical studies or at least two meta-analysesa statistical analysis that combines the results of two or more research studies; the results of smaller research studies addressing the same or similar questions can be analyzed as though they are one bigger, more powerful study of clinical studies of moderate or better quality (or one large meta-analysis) finding similar results
• Good evidence: significant effects in one large or several mid-sized and well-designed clinical studies ( randomized controlled trialsa study design in which people are randomly assigned to either an experimental group or a control group to compare the outcomes from different treatments; an RCT is considered a strong design for determining a therapy’s effects with an appropriate placebo or other strong comparison control or observational studies that control for confounds)
• Modest evidence: significant effects in at least three small but well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs), or one or more well-designed, mid-sized clinical studies of reasonably good quality (RCTs or observationala type of study in which individuals are observed or certain outcomes are measured, but no attempt is made to affect the outcome (for example, no treatment is given); an example is a study that records people’s diets, but doesn’t try to alter their diets, and looks for patterns of disease or other outcomes related to different foods studies), or several small studies aggregated into a meta-analysis
• Preliminary evidence: significant effects in small or poorly designed clinical studies OR conflicting results in adequate studies but a preponderance of evidence of an effect
• Weak evidence: one or more case studies, supported by animal evidence OR small treatment effects of limited clinical significance OR studies with no controls OR weak trends of effects
• Insufficient evidence: preclinical evidence only OR clinical studies with such poor or unclear methodology that no conclusion can be drawn OR conflicting findings across clinical studies with no preponderance of evidence in one direction; conflicting evidence occurs when studies find conflicting effects (positive effect vs no effect or negative effect) with the same treatment and the same general study population (same cancer type, for example)

• Less fatigue during radiotherapy among women with breast cancer treated with polarity therapy compared to modified massages or standard clinical care in a small RCTrandomized controlled trial, a study design in which people are randomly assigned to either an experimental group or a control group to compare the outcomes from different treatments; an RCT is considered a strong design for determining a therapy’s effects¹Mustian KM, Roscoe JA et al. Polarity therapy for cancer-related fatigue in patients with breast cancer receiving radiation therapy: a randomized controlled pilot study. Integrative Cancer Therapies. 2011 Mar;10(1):27-37.
• Less cancer-related fatigue during radiotherapy among women with breast cancer treated with 1 polarity therapy session compared to no polarity therapy, and further improvement after a second session in a small RCT²Roscoe JA, Matteson SE et al. Treatment of radiotherapy-induced fatigue through a nonpharmacological approach. Integrative Cancer Therapies 2005 Mar;4:8-13.

• Better health-related quality of life during radiotherapy among women with breast cancer treated with polarity therapy, comparable to modified massages and better than with standard clinical care in a small RCTrandomized controlled trial, a study design in which people are randomly assigned to either an experimental group or a control group to compare the outcomes from different treatments; an RCT is considered a strong design for determining a therapy’s effects³Mustian KM, Roscoe JA et al. Polarity therapy for cancer-related fatigue in patients with breast cancer receiving radiation therapy: a randomized controlled pilot study. Integrative Cancer Therapies. 2011 Mar;10(1):27-37.
• Better health-related quality of life during radiotherapy among women with breast cancer treated with 1 polarity therapy session compared to no polarity therapy, and further improvement after a second session in a small RCT⁴Roscoe JA, Matteson SE et al. Treatment of radiotherapy-induced fatigue through a nonpharmacological approach. Integrative Cancer Therapies 2005 Mar;4:8-13.

• Less anxiety and insomnia among middle-aged women treated with polarity therapy compared to receiving information on healthy sleep habits in a small RCTrandomized controlled trial, a study design in which people are randomly assigned to either an experimental group or a control group to compare the outcomes from different treatments; an RCT is considered a strong design for determining a therapy’s effects⁵Lambert J, Ouellet N, Boucher D. Effet d’une intervention en polarité sur l’insomnie et l’anxiété de femmes québécoises d’âge moyen [The effect of a polarity intervention on the insomnia and anxiety in middle-aged Quebec women]. Recherche en soins infirmiers. 2019 Mar;(136):43-53. French.
• Better scores for depression, bodily pain, stress, vitality and general health among caregivers of people with dementia treated with polarity therapy compared to an enhanced respite control condition in a small RCT⁶Korn L, Logsdon RG et al. A randomized trial of a CAM therapy for stress reduction in American Indian and Alaskan Native family caregivers. Gerontologist. 2009 Jun;49(3):368-77.