The previous three papers on the socalled transdermal electrostimulation therapy were made necessary by an earlier, preliminary, but generally optimistic report published by the initiators of this method, H. A. Puharich and J. L. Lawrence.1 It was followed by another, also somewhat optimistic, if tentative report by Martin et al.2 Both have appeared in other journals.1,2
Of the present studies, one (Hughes et al) generally supports the conclusions of Puharich and Lawrence, while the two others (Gerken et al and Glattke and Simmons) came to opposite conclusions.
In such a situation, it behooves the reader to critically compare the methods used in the various studies because it is here that the reasons for the disagreement are most likely to be found. This is all the more important, since even the improvements found (Puharich and Lawrence: 17% in 66% of the subjects; Hughes et al: 16% to 25%
Transdermal Electrostimulation Therapy. Arch Otolaryngol. 1974;100(2):107–108. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.1974.00780040113005
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: