This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Arch Otolaryngol. 1974;100(2):107-108.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

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% . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?