THE JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE

Volume 17, Number 8, 2011, pp. 711–721

ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089/acm.2010.0277

Credibility of Low-Strength Static Magnet Therapy

as an Attention Control Intervention for a Randomized
Controlled Study of CranioSacral Therapy
for Migraine Headaches

Peter Curtis, MD,1 Susan A. Gaylord, PhD,2 Jongbae Park, PhD, KMD,2
Keturah R. Faurot, PA, MPH,2 Rebecca Coble,2 Chirayath Suchindran, PhD,3
Remy R. Coeytaux, MD, PhD,4 Laurel Wilkinson, RN, LMBT,5 and J. Douglas Mann, MD 6

Abstract

Background: Developing valid control groups that generate similar perceptions and expectations to experi-
mental complementary and alternative (CAM) treatments can be challenging. The perceived credibility of
treatment and outcome expectancy often contributes to positive clinical responses to CAM therapies, thereby
confounding efficacy data. As part of a clinical feasibility study, credibility and expectancy data were obtained
from subjects suffering from migraine who received either CranioSacral therapy (CST) or an attention-control,
sham, and low-strength magnet (LSSM) intervention.
Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the LSSM intervention generated similar levels of
subject credibility and expectancy compared to CST.
Design: This was a two-arm randomized controlled trial.
Subjects: Sixty-five (65) adults with moderate to severe migraine were the subjects of this study.
Interventions: After an 8-week baseline, subjects were randomized to eight weekly treatments of either CST
(n = 36) or LSSM (n = 29). The latter involved the use of a magnet-treatment protocol using inactive and low-
strength static magnets designed to mimic the CST protocol in terms of setting, visit timing, body positioning,
and therapist–subject interaction.
Outcome measures: A four-item, self-administered credibility/expectancy questionnaire, based on a validated
instrument, was completed after the first visit.
Results: Using a 0–9 rating scale, the mean score for perceived logicality of treatment was significantly less for
LSSM (5.03, standard deviation [SD] 2.34) compared to CST (6.64, SD 2.19). Subject confidence that migraine
would improve was greater for CST (5.94, SD 2.01) than for LSSM (4.9, SD 2.21), a difference that was not
statistically significant. Significantly more subjects receiving CST (6.08, SD 2.27) would confidently recommend
treatment to a friend than those receiving LSSM (4.69, SD 2.49).
Conclusions: Although LSSM did not achieve a comparable level of credibility and expectancy to the CST,
several design and implementation factors may have contributed to the disparity. Based on analysis of these
factors, the design and implementation of a future study may be improved.

1
Department of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
2
Program on Integrative Medicine, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
3
Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.
4
Community and Family Medicine, Duke Center for Clinical Health Policy Research, Duke University, Durham, NC.
5
Private practice, Carrboro, NC.
6
Department of Neurology, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.

711
712 CURTIS ET AL.

Introduction intervention, as measured by headache frequency and in-

tensity, and quality of life, (using the Headache Impact Test),

A major challenge in research on complementary and

alternative medicine (CAM) is the development of a va-
lid control group with which to compare the intervention of
perception of benefit, migraine-related disability, general
health status (SF 36), and health care utilization.12–15 This
feasibility study was needed to develop, standardize, and
interest.1 In a well-designed study, the ideal control inter- clarify treatment and control protocols, recruitment strate-
vention should closely resemble or mimic the intervention in gies, and measurement and data-collection methods. The
terms of procedure, treatment duration and frequency, and development and credibility of treatment and control pro-
therapist attention.2 In this way, researchers can assess and tocols in the management of moderate to severe migraine
control for placebo effects induced by a range of heteroge- headaches are reported here.
neous contextual, personal, and relational factors experienced
by the patient during treatment.3 Development of treatment protocols. CST and LSSM
Patient perceptions about treatment credibility and protocols required development, standardization, and evalu-
expectancy of treatment outcome can play a large role in ation for their practical and efficient application in the even-
persistent clinical improvement.3–7 For example, in a meta- tual efficacy trial. A CST protocol was based on the clinical
analysis of four randomized trials of acupuncture for chronic evaluation and treatment system developed by the Upledger
pain, Linde et al. reported that more subjects with high ex- Institute, comprising the intervention elements shown in Ta-
pectations for improvement actually improved, compared ble 1 and described previously.11,15 An LSSM protocol was
with those who had low expectations.8 In another systematic designed as an attention-control condition matching such
review, positive subject expectations were consistently as- features of the CST protocol as frequency and duration of
sociated with better outcomes in 15 of 16 moderate to high- visits, therapist–subject interaction, and treatment setting.
quality clinical trials.4 Table 1 compares the two treatment protocols. The complete
Treatment credibility in a research context can be defined as CST and LSSM protocols are described in the Appendix.
the extent to which subjects perceive experimental and con-
trol modalities to be rational and believable approaches to CST intervention. The CST assessment and intervention
their clinical problem.9 Expectancy is the belief that clinical was performed by 1 practicing therapist, who is also a
improvement will occur as a result of the intervention. Both
factors must be accounted for in studies of treatment efficacy, Table 1. Comparison of Treatment Protocols:
usually by using a control intervention that is equally potent CranioSacral Therapy and Magnet Therapy
in establishing treatment credibility and expectancy of im- for Migraine
provement without affecting the biologic mechanism en-
gendered by the intervention under study.9,10 All subjects:
This study reports the credibility and expectation of ben-
 Initial brief review of recent headache and general
efit of a novel attention-control procedure in a feasibility
symptoms
study of CranioSacral therapy (CST) as adjunctive treatment  Assessment of any adverse effects of prior treatment
for migraine. The control procedure, involving a sham  Blood pressure and pulse recorded before and after visit
magnet treatment protocol using inactive and low-strength  Headache severity recorded before and after visit
static magnets (LSSM), was designed to generate similar  Visual scan
levels of credibility and expectation of benefit among the  Subject remains supine for treatment
subjects in the control group compared to the active inter-  Total clinic visit time = 45 minutes
vention group.
CranioSacral therapy Magnet therapy
Materials and Methods Evaluation of the CranioSacral Fixed magnets (12) applied
Intervention development rhythm,a including around the table
amplitude, quality, and rate Magnet strength assessed
A feasibility study was undertaken for developing a ran- at each position
domized, controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of CST CranioSacral assessment Magnet pad application
as adjunctive treatment for migraine compared to an atten- and treatment
tion-control intervention using LSSM. The study protocol has Pelvis Pelvis
been described elsewhere.11 CST was developed by Dr. John Lower respiratory Lower diaphragm
Upledger, DO using the concept that abnormal cerebrospinal Thoracic inlet Upper thorax
(front and back)
fluid rhythms may follow birth injury or later traumas and
Shoulders Upper thorax toward
lead to a variety of neurophysiologic disturbances and shoulders
symptoms.11 CST, which purportedly releases tissue restric- Neck Neck
tions and eliminates stasis within the hydraulic system of the Occiput Occiput (front and back)
brain and spinal cord, is increasingly sought by the public for Frontal/parietal bone lifts Head and feet
the relief of multiple conditions, including (1) headache, (2) Sphenoid and mandible
asthma, (3) arthritis, (4) insomnia, (5) cerebral palsy, (6) au- mouth work
tism, (7) memory disturbances, (8) whiplash injuries, and (9) a
The CranioSacral rhythm is palpated by the practitioner (at the
fibromyalgia.11 feet) and assessed for rate, quality, and symmetry.
The proposed randomized trial for which this feasibility A normal rate is 8–12 cycles per minutes. A normal rhythm shows
study was undertaken would compare CST with a control a balanced vitality.
CREDIBILITY OF CONTROL GROUP FOR CRANIOSACRAL THERAPY INTERVENTION 713

registered nurse and licensed massage therapist, with ex- field intensity by 75%.) At each session, the therapist used a
tensive training and experience in CST. Only 1 therapist was magnetometer to confirm that for the active magnets the field
utilized at this phase of the research because it was believed intensity at the subject’s skin was close to zero (no more than
that a single individual, with training and close supervision 30–80 G) (DC Magnetometer Model 1, with a resolution of
in this research setting, was more likely to achieve a stan- 0.1 G, manufactured by AlphaLab, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT).
dardized approach to each subject than could be achieved The magnetometer was also used by the therapist to display
by a variety of therapists, especially in a modality where a positive reading when placed up against an active magnet
weak clinical reliability between practitioners has been in order to enhance the believability of the magnet inter-
reported.16,17 vention for curious subjects.
In order to replicate more exactly the sequence and ana-
Control intervention. One important question was whe- tomical location of the CST protocol, three inert magnets
ther CST (a manual technique) could be effectively mimicked (rectangular 2 · 5 cm by 0.4-cm thick) contained inside a cloth
as a sham procedure, or whether a different but appropriate pad were applied by the therapist to several locations on the
complementary modality could be used as an effective con- center of the body (over clothes, from the lower part of the
trol procedure. Two options were considered. abdomen to the head). This cloth pad was applied to the
same locations at the same time intervals as in the CST
Option 1: Sham CST. Sham maneuvers have been widely procedure (Table 2). In contrast to the CST, no soft-tissue
used as controls in osteopathic medicine and chiropractic pressure or motion was exerted by the pad, and there was no
research.9,18,19 An ideal control method for CST, which con- direct touching of the subject by the therapist (other than
sists of assessment and treatment using gentle muscle pal- assistance in getting on and off the table). The therapist re-
pation and mobilization techniques, would be to exactly mained attentive and in the room with the subject during the
replicate the CST protocol without producing any treatment entire procedure, either sitting or moving about the room to
effect. Sham CST would have to be given either by an expert apply the magnets and monitor their strength. In both the
CST practitioner or by a specially trained massage therapist. CST and LSSM protocols, conversation between subject and
Furthermore, the CST sham procedure would have to last a therapist was driven by subjects’ preferences.
comparable amount of time (i.e., 45 minutes) as the CST In the process of informed consent, the study volunteers
treatment and be standardized and replicable at each visit. were given a description of CST and magnet therapy and
Ultimately, it was concluded that it was unlikely a sham their potential usefulness for improving migraine headaches.
manual procedure could be created that would closely mimic At the beginning of the first treatment, the therapist de-
CST without producing an unintended biologic effect. scribed, per scripted protocol, how CST and magnets might
produce a biologic effect, referring to available articles and
Option 2: LSSM. Inert and active magnets were provided pamphlets describing the benefits of CST and magnet
courtesy of American Health Services Magnets, Palatine, IL.
Instead of a sham CST arm, it was decided to develop a
control protocol that could generate similar elements of
placebo effects. These elements included (1) a similar pro-
Table 2. Characteristics of the Study Sample:
cedural treatment sequence using gentle physical contact CranioSacral Therapy for Migraine, 2006–2008
directed at the same anatomical areas; and (2) replication of
the CST visit context using the same therapist in the same CranioSacral Magnet therapy
location (i.e., the therapist’s treatment room in an integrative therapy group
outpatient clinic) as that used for subjects receiving the true Characteristic group (N = 36)a (N = 33)
CST intervention. It was posited that magnet therapy, widely
used by the public for pain syndromes, could generate Mean (range) Mean (range)
Age (years) 42.9 (12–71) 41.2 (19–72)
equivalent therapeutic credibility and outcome expectations
Education (years of school) 16.7 (7–28) 16.9 (12–20)
if delivered in the same context and by the same therapist as Average number of monthly 13.4 (5–28) 13.6 (6–27)
in the CST arm. Static magnet therapy is a popular and near- headache days,
zero risk modality that, at low to moderate intensities (300– pretreatmentb
800 + G), has been shown to affect nerve cells and increase N (%) N (%)
local tissue blood flow and oxygenation when magnets are in
direct contact with the skin.20–22 Female 33 (91.7) 32 (97.0)
The CST therapist was trained in the LSSM protocol for White 28 (77.8) 29 (87.9)
Living with partner 24 (66.7) 23 (69.7)
this study. To ensure that the LSSM control protocol had no
Employed 24 (66.7) 29 (87.9)
human biologic effects, the protocol called for the therapist to Household income
place six identical inert ceramic magnets (1.6 cm in diameter < $20,000 6 (16.7) 1 (3.03)
and 0.4-cm thick) and six weakly active bipolar magnets $20,000–59,999 12 (33.3) 8 (24.2)
(300–500 G) at intervals around the perimeter of the exami- $60,000–99,999 4 (11.1) 8 (24.2)
nation table on which the control subject was resting. Both > $100,000 13 (36.1) 10 (30.3)
the active and inert magnets were placed at distances of 3 to Missing 1 6
5 inches from the subject’s body, with the active magnets a
Reported N reflects the 69 randomized subjects.
positioned further than the inert magnets. (The inverse b
The mean number of headache days was calculated from the
square law, as applied to electromagnetism, states that mean number of headaches in the 2 months prior to the intervention
doubling the distance between subject and magnet reduces and the mean number of days reported in the diaries.
714 CURTIS ET AL.

therapy, available in her treatment room (see the Appendix Results

for therapist’s script for CST and LSSM conditions).
Sixty-five (65) of 69 randomized subjects completed the
credibility/expectancy instrument. Subjects were predomi-
Reliability of the therapist
nantly white, female, and college educated. The mean age in
The therapist was a key participant in the initial develop- the CST group was 42.9 and that in the LSSM group was 41;
ment of both CST and magnet protocols (subject communi- ages ranged from 12 to 71 years in the CST group (Table 2).
cation, technique, and sequencing) and was subsequently Using a 0–9 rating scale, the mean score for perceived
trained in the procedures over several weeks. Particular em- logicality of treatment (question 1) was significantly less for
phasis was given to standardizing communication, move- LSSM (5.03, SD 2.34) compared to the CST group (6.64, SD
ment, and contact with the subject to eliminate bias; the first, 2.19), p = 0.005. Although subjects’ confidence that migraine
third, fifth, and seventh treatment sessions with each subject would improve (question 2) was greater for CST (5.94, SD
were videotaped and evaluated by research staff for com- 2.01) than for LSSM (4.9, SD 2.21), this difference was not
munication or physical bias toward one or other of the statistically significant ( p = 0.06). In response to question 3,
protocols. significantly more subjects receiving CST (6.08, SD 2.27)
would confidently recommend treatment to a friend than
those receiving LSSM (4.69, SD 2.49), p = 0.03 (Table 3). On
Assessment of treatment credibility and expectancy
the other hand, subjects from both groups were equally and
The credibility of the protocols and the expectancy of strongly positive about the competence of the therapist
improvement for each subject were assessed by their com- (question 4), with no between-group differences (8.41, SD
pletion of a commonly used and adapted self-report instru- 0.95 versus 8.31, SD 1.09), p = 0.815 on the Wilcoxon sum
ment that had been originally developed by Borkovec and rank test. The withdrawal/dropout rate was very similar
Nau.23,24 Borkovec and Nau used a 0- to 9-point scale for between the groups (11.1% for CST and 15.2% for LSSM
five questions to which the subject could mark his/her de- [p = 0.62]).
gree of confidence in treatment rationale and expected out- Upon examining individual responses, it was noted that
come, regarding psychologic interventions for a specific scores for some subjects—1 in the CST group and 4 in the
psychologic problem: anxiety in public speaking. Others magnet group—differed dramatically from the norm. These
have successfully modified this scale, adapting it for use individuals had responded with a 0 or 1 for every item, ex-
with other illnesses and interventions.25,26 The first three of cept confidence in the therapist, indicating a complete lack of
the original five items in Borkovec and Nau’s instrument confidence in the proposed treatment. When the data from
were adapted: (1) How logical does this type of treatment these five outliers were removed, the only significant dif-
seem to you? (2) How confident would you be that this ference remaining between LSSM and CST on any of the
treatment would be successful? and (3) How confident items was in logicalness of therapy (Table 4).
would you be in recommending this treatment to a friend?
An attempt was made to adapt the final two questions of Discussion
Borkovec and Nau’s original questionnaire, which deal with
Study participants in the CST and LSSM groups re-
hypothetical situations involving anxiety23 (i.e., ‘‘If you were
sponded significantly differently in terms of treatment
extremely anxious in speech situations, would you be will-
credibility and expectancy of benefit. Removal from the
ing to undergo such treatment?’’ and ‘‘How successful do
analysis of outlier data from those subjects in either group
you feel this treatment would be in decreasing a different
who perceived that their treatment had no credibility and
fear, for example, strong anxiety about taking tests?’’). In-
expressed no confidence in it (1 in the CST group and 4 in the
stead, a question was added regarding the subject’s confi-
LSSM group) revealed that the only remaining significant
dence in the therapist’s competence—a factor closely linked
difference between LSSM and CST was in the logicality of
to treatment credibility. The resulting four-item question-
the procedure.
naire was completed by each subject at the beginning of the
second treatment visit and was placed in an envelope for
retrieval by the research staff. The four questions were
worded as follows:
Table 3. Comparison of Mean Credibility Scores
1. How logical does this type of therapy seem to you for by Treatment Type: CranioSacral Therapy
helping people treat or prevent their headache? (Not for Migraine
logical [0]—very logical [9])
Magnet CranioSacral
2. How confident are you that this treatment will be suc- therapy therapy
cessful in reducing your headache symptoms if you (N = 29) (N = 36)
were to have approximately eight such treatments over Survey items Mean (SD) Mean (SD) p-Valuea
the course of 2 months? (Not at all confident [0]—very
confident [9]) 1. Therapy is logical 5.03 (2.34) 6.64 (2.19) 0.005
3. How confident would you be in recommending this 2. Confident in success 4.90 (2.21) 5.94 (2.01) 0.062
treatment to a friend who has a problem with head- 3. Willing to recommend 4.69 (2.49) 6.08 (2.27) 0.029
aches? (Not at all confident [0]—very confident [9]) to a friend
4. Therapist is competent 8.41 (0.95) 8.31 (1.09) 0.815
4. How competent do you consider the therapist who
gave you treatment to be? (Not at all competent [0]—very a
Based on Wilcoxon two-sample, two-sided test.
competent [9]) SD, standard deviation.
CREDIBILITY OF CONTROL GROUP FOR CRANIOSACRAL THERAPY INTERVENTION 715

Table 4. Comparison of Mean Credibility protocol and could be improved in a subsequent study:
Scores by Treatment Type: CranioSacral (1) The magnets were located in Velcro pockets, created
and Magnet Therapy for Migraine with Removal by a local seamstress, and may not have had the same
of Outliers ( > 1 SD) cachet as the use of commercially marketed magnet
Magnet CranioSacral products. (2) The therapist, an expert in CST, had no
therapy therapy prior experience with magnet therapy and may have
(N = 25) (N = 35) been subconsciously biased against giving this form of
Survey items Mean (SD) Mean (SD) p-Valuea treatment. Thus, hiring a separate therapist who used
magnets regularly in a CAM practice might have added
1. Therapy is logical 5.54 (1.88) 7.03 (1.51) 0.004 to the credibility of the intervention. (3) Also, blinding
2. Confident in success 5.56 (1.53) 6.11 (1.76) 0.200 the therapist to the relative activity of the magnets
3. Willing to recommend 5.36 (1.96) 6.25 (2.05) 0.095 might have increased her own belief in magnet capa-
to a friend
bility, and her belief could have been passed on to
4. Therapist is competent 8.44 (0.96) 8.40 (0.95) 0.815
subjects. (4) Moreover, the therapist reported that some
a
Based on Wilcoxon two-sample, two-sided test. subjects mentioned to her that they had been especially
SD, standard deviation. attracted to the study by the opportunity to receive CST
and were disappointed when they found that they were
assigned to the LSSM group.
3. Possible flaws in use of credibility instrument. The use or
Since the credibility/expectancy scores diverged signifi-
timing of the credibility instrument may not have been
cantly between the CST and LSSM groups, and since beliefs
optimal. (1) The credibility instrument was modified, as
about logicality and expectation of benefit have been known
was done in previous studies, but was not revalidated.
to influence outcomes, it was important to explore and iden-
It is unclear whether the modified instrument remains
tify possible factors in the management and implementation
entirely valid. It has become common practice to ad-
of this feasibility study that may have contributed to differ-
minister the credibility instrument after the first expo-
ences in credibility scores between the CST and LSSM treat-
sure to the treatment. Would other timing be more
ments, as follows: (1) Was there any bias in recruiting subjects
useful? Or should the expectancy question have been
and explaining the protocols? (2) Was the design or execution
asked immediately after randomization? (2) Should the
of the LSSM protocol less than optimal? (3) Was the assess-
credibility questionnaire have been re-administered at
ment of credibility flawed in terms of validity or timing?23,27
the end of the treatment period? (3) From the data and
(4) How credible were either of the interventions?
careful review of the study design and trajectory, sev-
These questions are addressed below.
eral problems were identified that probably influenced
1. Possible bias in recruiting subjects and explaining the pro- the credibility and expectancy scores.
tocols. At recruitment, and on the first treatment visit, The time point during the study at which these beliefs
subjects may have received inadequate information or are measured may be important. Martin et al. reported that
may not have clearly understood the rationale of one or although valid expectancies of treatment can often be de-
both interventions. The degree of understanding was rived from patient perceptions before therapy begins, these
assessed verbally by the therapist at the recruitment beliefs can sometimes change quickly after the first treat-
and first treatment visit but not measured quantita- ment experience.28,30 In the current study, the credibility
tively. Horvath reported that treatment expectancy was data were obtained just before the second treatment, in
closely linked to the amount and quality of information keeping with current thinking about appropriate timing of
presented to subjects as part of explaining therapeutic expectancy measures; but timing can affect response va-
rationales.28 A communication disparity between CST lidity. For example, although question 3 in the credibility
and LSSM groups might have adversely affected the instrument asks the subject to score his/her confidence in
credibility score of LSSM. In a future study, this possi- recommending the modality to a friend, in this study the
ble disparity could be remedied by applying a survey question was asked after only one treatment session.
instrument to test understanding and knowledge. Hence, subject response would have been more likely the
In retrospect, there were subtle biases toward pro- result of guesswork than derived from a thorough expe-
moting CST in the recruitment and consent materials, rience with the intervention. Currently, there is no general
such as describing the therapist as highly experienced in agreement in the literature on when and how often credi-
CST but not giving an equivalent statement for her bility and expectancy measures should be undertaken.
skills with LSSM; and placing CST description text first Although data from the credibility surveys showed
in the consent and informational materials, possibly that LSSM therapy was less credible than CST with
emphasizing its relative importance. Also, all subjects diminished expectancy of improved outcome, there are
were treated in the CST therapist’s office, which was some concerns that the instrument may not be mea-
located in a holistic health treatment facility that offered suring what has been claimed for it.23,28 Although la-
CST. Flyers available in the waiting area regarding CST, beled a ‘‘credibility’’ instrument, the second and third
while not related to the study, may have introduced questions in this assessment tool deal with treatment
bias in the participants, since information about LSSM expectancy. Given the fact that, over time, Borkovec
was available only in the treatment room.29 and Nau’s instrument has been modified and adapted
2. LSSM protocol: Possible flaws and solutions. Several fac- in terms of questions and type of scale with little further
tors may have limited the credibility of the LSSM validation, it would be useful to re-assess the constructs
716 CURTIS ET AL.

of the instrument with particular reference to comple- authors will proceed to test the effectiveness of CST in mi-
mentary therapies. graine using a larger study population. In addition, it is
It is interesting that the dropout rate during treatment planned to revisit the construct and validity of measuring
was not significantly different between the groups. A credibility as it applies to CAM interventions.
high subject dropout rate would have been expected for
a CAM therapy that lacked credibility and generated low Acknowledgments
expectations of success. Second, some validation of the
The authors gratefully acknowledge funding support for
LSSM control in terms of producing similar expectancy
this trial from the National Institutes of Health, Center for
and placebo effects to CST comes from the high ratings of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Grant #5 R21
the procedural competence of the therapist by both study
AT002750-02. This research is supported in part by a grant
groups. Rating the therapist highly would not fit easily
(RR00046) from the General Clinical Research Centers pro-
with the perception that they were receiving illogical
gram of the Division of Research Resources, National In-
treatment and had low expectations of improvement.
stitutes of Health. The authors would also like to thank
4. Credibility of either intervention. Apart from the high
Laurel Wilkinson, RN, LMBT for delivering both interven-
positive scores regarding the competence of the thera-
tions and helping to define the treatment protocols. We wish
pist, overall expectancy scores in this study were only in
to thank Gloria Suarez, Christine Meyer, Nicholas Scott,
the moderate range of the scale. Goossens et al. re-
Paula Umstead, and Stuart Scott for their research assistance.
ported similar findings of moderate expectancy scores
in their study of behavioral interventions in chronic
pain,28 suggesting that patients suffering from a chronic Disclosure Statement
problem might well have low expectations and credi- There were competing financial interests.
bility because of previous disappointments. It is possi-
ble that many migraine subjects in this study fell into References
this chronic symptom category. However, this result
may have been influenced by the fact that the ques- 1. Lewith GTJWB. Clinical Research in Complementary
tionnaire was given to the subject by the therapist just Therapies: Principles, Problems and Solutions. Edinburgh,
before the second intervention session. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 2002.
Second, the often lackluster medical experience of 2. Turner JA, Deyo RA, Loeser JD, et al. The importance of
placebo effects in pain treatment and research. JAMA
migraine sufferers might produce a degree of skepti-
1994;271:1609–1614.
cism and reticence toward the claims of benefit for ei-
3. Price DD, Finniss DG, Benedetti F. A comprehensive review
ther CST or LSSM made during recruitment. Thus, it
of the placebo effect: Recent advances and current thought.
might be useful in the future to probe responses to such Annu Rev Psychol 2008;59:565–590.
credibility surveys in more detail to explore why sub- 4. Mondloch MV, Cole DC, Frank JW. Does how you do depend
jects do, or do not, believe in the potential efficacy of on how you think you’ll do? A systematic review of the evi-
any therapies they are receiving. dence for a relation between patients’ recovery expectations
and health outcomes. CMAJ Jul 24 2001;165:174–179.
Conclusions 5. Barron CJ, Moffett JA, Potter M. Patient expectations of
physiotherapy: Definitions, concepts, and theories. Physi-
While several design and implementation factors may other Theory Practice 2007;23:37–46.
have contributed to the observed differences, LSSM did not 6. Whitehead WE. Control groups appropriate for behavioral
achieve comparable levels of credibility and expectancy to interventions. Gastroenterology 2004;126(suppl 1):S159–S163.
CST. Valuable information has been gained that will assist 7. Dorn SD, Kaptchuk TJ, Park JB, et al. A meta-analysis of the
with interpretation of outcomes, for which analysis is under placebo response in complementary and alternative medi-
way, and that will improve the design and execution of a cine trials of irritable bowel syndrome. Neurogastroenterol
future clinical trial. First, the authors have developed and Motil 2007;19:630–637.
tested a popular CAM therapeutic modality, CST, with a 8. Linde K, Witt CM, Streng A, et al. The impact of patient
population of patients with migraine headache and found expectations on outcomes in four randomized controlled
that it is at least moderately credible as an intervention. trials of acupuncture in patients with chronic pain. Pain
Second, the authors have developed and tested the feasibility 2007;128:264–271.
9. Licciardone JC, Russo DP. Blinding protocols, treatment
of using a novel attention-control intervention, LSSM, gain-
credibility, and expectancy: Methodologic issues in clinical
ing important information about possible improvements in
trials of osteopathic manipulative treatment. J Am Osteo-
design and implementation of future studies. Finally, an
path Assoc 2006;106:457–463.
improved attention-control strategy could offer a viable at- 10. Borkovec TD, Nau SD. Credibility of analogue therapy ra-
tention-control methodology for research on CAM inter- tionales. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 1972;3:257–260.
ventions in which establishing a rigorously mimicked control 11. Upledger JE. Craniosacral therapy is an integral part of
group is required but problematic. general osteopathic education and training: An approach to
diagnosis and treatment. In: DiGiovanna EL, Schiowitz S,
Future Directions eds. An Osteopathic Approach to Diagnosis and Treatment,
2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1997:126–140.
Future research will focus on incorporating changes in 12. Kosinski M, Bayliss MS, Bjorner JB, et al. A six-item short-
design of the LSSM intervention, based on the above find- form survey for measuring headache impact: The HIT-6.
ings. If credibility/expectancy equivalence is established, the Qual Life Res 2003;12:963–974.
CREDIBILITY OF CONTROL GROUP FOR CRANIOSACRAL THERAPY INTERVENTION 717

13. Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Dowson AJ, Sawyer J. Development 23. Borkovec TD, Nau SD. Credibility of analogue therapy ra-
and testing of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) tionales. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry 1972;3:257–260.
Questionnaire to assess headache-related disability. Neu- 24. Devilly GJ, Borkovec TD. Psychometric properties of the
rology 2001;56(suppl 1):S20–S28. credibility/expectancy questionnaire. J Behav Ther Exp
14. McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-Item Psychiatry 2000;31:73–86.
Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and 25. Vincent CA. Credibility assessments in trials of acupuncture.
clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental Comp Med Res 1990;4:8–11.
health constructs. Medical Care 1993;31:247–263. 26. Wood R, Lewith GT. The credibility of placebo controls in
15. Mann JD, Faurot KR, Wilkinson L, et al. Craniosacral therapy acupuncture studies. Complement Ther Med 1998;6:79–82.
for migraine: Protocol development for an exploratory con- 27. Birch S. Credibility of treatment in controlled trials of acu-
trolled clinical trial. BMC Complement Altern Med 2008;8:28. puncture. J Altern Complement Med 1997;3:315–321.
16. Hartman SE, Norton JM. Interexaminer reliability and cra- 28. Goossens ME, Vlaeyen JW, Hidding A, et al. Treatment ex-
nial osteopathy. Sci Rev Altern Med 2002;6:23–34. pectancy affects the outcome of cognitive-behavioral inter-
17. Moran RW, Gibbons P. Intraexaminer and interexaminer ventions in chronic pain. Clin J Pain 2005;21:18–26; discussion
reliability for palpation of the cranial rhythmic impulse at 69–72.
the head and sacrum. J Manipulative Physiol Therapeut 29. Horvath P. Treatment expectancy as a function of the
2001;24:183–190. amount of information presented in therapeutic rationales.
18. Ernst E, Harkness E. Spinal manipulation: A systematic re- J Clin Psychol 1990;46:636–642.
view of sham-controlled, double-blind, randomized clinical 30. Martin PJ, Moore JE, Sterne AL, Lindsey CJ. Patients’ ex-
trials. J Pain Symptom Manage 2001;22:879–889. pectancies and hospital outcome. J Clin Psychol 1977;33:254–
19. Hawk C, Azad A, Phongphua C, Long CR. Preliminary 258.
study of the effects of a placebo chiropractic treatment with
sham adjustments. J Manipulative Physiol Therapeut 1999;
22:436–443. Address correspondence to:
20. Chang-zer H. Static magnetic influence on human nerve Susan A. Gaylord, PhD
function. Arch Phys Med 1987;68:162–164. Program on Integrative Medicine
21. Ochsman JL. Clinical aspects of biological fields: An intro- Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
duction for health care professionals. J Bodywork Mov C.B. 7200
Therap 2002;6:117–125. School of Medicine
22. Wolsko PM, Eisenberg DM, Simon LS, et al. Double-blind University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
placebo-controlled trial of static magnets for the treatment of Chapel Hill, NC 27599
osteoarthritis of the knee: Results of a pilot study. Altern
Ther Health Med 2004;10:36–43. E-mail: gaylords@med.unc.edu
718 CURTIS ET AL.

Appendix: Protocol for CranioSacral Therapy

[Therapist script is in italics]
1. Explain the rationale for CranioSacral therapy, and then help the subject settle comfortably on the massage table.
Let me tell you how the CranioSacral treatment will be organized today. First of all, I want you to know that CranioSacral therapy
has few adverse effects; you may feel a bit sleepy after your treatment and some people notice vivid dreams. As you may know,
CranioSacral therapy is already widely used for treatment, although there hasn’t been much research in conventional medicine.
That’s why we are doing this study. It is thought that CranioSacral therapy helps people with headaches by normalizing the rhythm
of fluid in the nervous system.
Are you ready to go ahead now?

Visit Tasks

1 Explain protocol; VIDEOTAPE; treat; document.

2 Give patient credibility questionnaire; treat; document.
3 VIDEOTAPE; treat; document.
4 Treat; document.
5 VIDEOTAPE; treat; document.
6 Treat; document.
7 VIDEOTAPE; treat; document.
8 Ask subject to continue diary; treat; document.
Headache history:
Duration of headaches: _________years
History of physical trauma: __________________________________________________________________________________
Location of headaches: ______________________________________________________________________________________
Type of headache: __________________________________________________________________________________________
If you feel like talking during the therapy, you may do so; it does not interfere with the therapy. It is also fine if you do
not talk or even if you fall sleep.
CranioSacral session 1 Date: _____________ Subject ID: _______________
Headache intensity prior to therapy:
,0 None ,1 Mild ,2 Moderate ,3 Severe
BP: ________/__________ P:____________
Action Results

Visual scan , Normal , Abnormal:

CS rhythm, rate, and , Normal , Abnormal:
symmetry

Feet/ankles/knees
Assessment , Assessed , NA
RTM , Not treated , Simple , Complex:

Sacrum
Assessment , Assessed , NA
RTM , Abdomen
, L5–S1 decompression
Dural tube ,Traction

Lower thoracic
RTM , Not treated , Simple , Complex:

Upper thoracic
Assessment , Assessed , NA
RTM , Not treated , Simple , Complex:

Shoulders
Assessment , Assessed , NA
RTM , Not treated , Simple , Complex:

Neck
Assessment , Assessed , NA
ROM , Normal , Restricted:
RTM , Not treated , Simple , Complex:
CREDIBILITY OF CONTROL GROUP FOR CRANIOSACRAL THERAPY INTERVENTION 719

Hyoid
, Treated , NA

Occiput
Assessment , Assessed , NA
ROM , Normal , Abnormal:
Treatment , None , Simple , Complex:
Parietal
Parietal lift , Not treated , Simple , Complex:

Frontal
Frontal lift , Not treated , Simple , Complex:

Sphenoid
, Not treated
, Flexion
, Extension
, Torsion , Left , Right
, Side bend , Left , Right
, Lateral strain , Left , Right
, Vertical strain , Superior , Inferior
, Compression , Treated
Temporal
, Not treated
, Temporal wobble
, Ear circumduction
, Decompression

Mandible
Assessment , Assessed , NA
, Compression–decompression

Mouth work
1. Maxilla , Assessed , NA
, Flexion–extension , with sphenoid
Torsion , Left , Right
Shear , Left , Right
, Impaction–compression
2. Vomer , Not treated , Torsion: , Shear:
3. Nasal bone , Not treated ,
4. Palatines , Not treated ,
5. Teeth , Not treated , Quadrant:
6. Zygoma , Not treated ,

Rocking the falx , Not treated , Simple , Complex:

Dural tube , Rock , Glide
CV4 ,

Summary assessment
Restrictions , Mild , Moderate , Severe
Percent improvement __________ %
Comments:
Headache intensity at end of therapy:
,0 None ,1 Mild ,2 Moderate ,3 Severe
BP: ________/__________ P:____________
720 CURTIS ET AL.

PROTOCOL FOR MAGNET THERAPY

[Therapist script is in italics]
1. Explain the rationale for CranioSacral therapy, and then help the subject settle comfortably on the massage table.
2. Explain how the magnets are set up on the table, and that pads containing magnets will be applied for 5–10-minute
periods to different parts of the body and the head.
3. Show subject the small pads containing the magnets and explain how they will be used. Let subject know that you will
check the magnetic fields twice during the session.
4. Ask subject to lie down comfortably on the table. If they need to get up and stretch from time to time, they can do this.
5. Attach magnets according to the diagram, using Velcro to the sides of the sheet lying on the table while patient watches.
6. Apply the stretch wraps with magnetic pads over washable flannel covers to the patient’s body in sequence as follows:
(a) Around both ankles (5 minutes)
(b) Around both knees or thighs (5 minutes)
(c) Under sacrum and over pelvis (5 minutes)
(d) Over anterior lower rib cage and over upper rib cage (5 minutes)
(e) Around both shoulders (5 minutes)
(f) Neck and occiput (5 minutes)
(g) Forehead and feet (5 minutes)
Let me tell you how the magnet treatment will be organized today. First of all, I want you to know that magnet therapy produces no
adverse effects and the magnets are of low strength (300–800 G). As you may know, magnets are already widely used for treatment,
although there hasn’t been much research in conventional medicine. That’s why we are doing this study.
Their health benefits come from the fact that magnets have been shown to affect local blood vessels and improve local blood flow and
they increase oxygenation and cell metabolism. That’s what we are hoping will help the migraine headache.
Would you like to look at a magnet? This is what they look like before we sew them into the material. (Show participant
an active loose magnet and let him or her handle). I will be placing magnets around you on the table to create a magnetic field.
This Gaussmeter lets me check the field.
In addition to the magnets I place around the table, I will be using these pads that contain several small magnets on different parts of
your body, starting at your ankles, going up the body and ending with your head. I will change the positions about every 5 minutes.
If you feel like talking during the therapy, you may do so; it does not interfere with the therapy. It is also fine if you do not
talk or even if you fall sleep.
Are you ready to go ahead now?
Reminders:
1. Treatment duration: 45 minutes
2. Background magnets should be attached to sheet with Velcro
3. Move magnet pads around body every 5 minutes
4. No adverse effects
5. Do you have any questions about the magnets?
6. Show magnets if asked. 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12 are active

Visit Tasks
8 Above head 7
1 Explain protocol; videotape, treat; document.
2 Give patient credibility questionnaire; treat; document.
3 Videotape; treat; document.
9 Shoulder level 6 4 Treat; document.
5 Videotape; treat; document.
6 Treat; document.
7 Videotape; treat; document.
8 Ask subject to continue diary; treat; document.
10 Hip level 5

Headache history:
Duration of headaches: _________years
11 Knee level 4 History of physical trauma:
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
Location of headaches:
___________________________________________________
12 Ankle level 3
___________________________________________________
Type of headache:
___________________________________________________
1 2
___________________________________________________
CREDIBILITY OF CONTROL GROUP FOR CRANIOSACRAL THERAPY INTERVENTION 721

Magnet session 1 Date: _____________

Subject ID: _______________
Headache intensity prior to therapy:
,0 None ,1 Mild ,2 Moderate ,3 Severe
BP: ________/__________ P:____________
Action Results
Visual scan , Normal , Abnormal:
Magnets attached to sheet ,1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,5 ,6
, 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12
CS rhythm: feet
Assessment
Rate , Normal , <8 , > 12
Magnet applications
Around both ankles , 5 minutes , Other:
Intensity of magnets at ankles , None , < 300 , 300–500 , > 500
Around both knees or thighs , 5 minutes , Other:
Intensity of magnets at knees , None , < 300 , 300–500 , > 500
Under sacrum and over pelvis , 5 minutes , Other:
Intensity of magnets at hips , None , < 300 , 300–500 , > 500
Lower and upper rib cage , 5 minutes , Other:
Around both shoulders , 5 minutes , Other:
Intensity of magnets at shoulders , None , < 300 , 300–500 , > 500
Neck and occiput , 5 minutes , Other:
Intensity of magnets above head , None , < 300 , 300–500 , > 500
Forehead and feet , 5 minutes , Other:
Intensity of magnets at feet , None , < 300 , 300–500 , > 500
Summary assessment
Comments:
Headache intensity at end of therapy:
,0 None ,1 Mild ,2 Moderate ,3 Severe
BP: ________/__________ P:____________

BP, blood pressure; P, pulse; CS, CranioSacral; NA, not applicable; RTM, rhythm; ROM, range of motion.