Restricted accessOtherFirst published online 1998-5
A Statistical Comparison of Repeatability in Three Commonly Used Bioelectronic Devices: Kirlian Photography,the Segmental Electrogram,and the Ami of Motoyama
This paper describes the results of measurements made on 30 patients, tested at the same time of day on consecutive days, with each of three commonly used bioelectronic diagnostic devices. The repeatability of these measurements was compared statistically, using a method known as the coefficient of variation. The most repeatable technique was the AMI of Motoyama. Kirlian photography and the segmental electrogram showed widely varying results, which casts doubt upon their validity as bioelectronic investigational devices.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HeimG, SchimmelHW (1987) Handbuch für die computerisierte segmentelektrographie.Straub Druck, Schramberg
2.
KenyonJ (1986) 21st century medicine.Thorsons Publishers, Wellingborough
3.
KenyonJ (1985) Modern techniques of acupuncture, vol 3.Thorsons Publishers, Wellingborough: Ch. 6
4.
MotoyamaH (1980) Electro-physiological and preliminary biochemical studies of skin properties in relation to the acupuncture meridian. International Association for Religion and Parapsychology.6: 1–36
5.
SchimmelHW, GrieshaberB (1982) The segmentalelectrogram (SEG). In: KenyonJ, ed. A Segmental Electrogram.Straub Druck, Schramberg
6.
KenyonJ, DumitrescuI (1983) Electrographic imaging in medicine and biology.Neville Spearman Ltd, Saffron Walden
OmuraY (1978) Kirlian photography and acupuncture: their application to basic clinical research and diagnosis. Acupuncture & Electro-Therapeutics Research. 3(3–4): 273–82
10.
ReinG (1985) Corona discharge photography of human breast tumour biopsies. Acupuncture & Electro-Therapeutics Research.10(4): 305–8
11.
TillerWA (1976) Kirlian photography as an electrotherapeutic research tool. Acupuncture & Electro-Therapeutics Research.2(2): 33
12.
TungJM (1980) L'effet Kirlian en acupuncture In: TredanielG, ed. Maissoneuve, Paris
13.
BlandMJ, AltmanDG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. Feb. 8th: 306–10
