SCIENTIFIC TEST OF NO-SHIFT-LAG
A scientific trial was conducted in 1996 to determine the efficacy of doses of the homeopathic remedy called No-Shift-Lag in alleviating shift lag.
The design methodology of the trial was a double blind, placebo-controlled crossover.
The setting was the night shift of the Wellington, New Zealand Police Force. The subject group comprised 26 volunteers with experience of night shift work. The study was designed so that feelings of shift lag and mood could be closely monitored.
One tablet was taken at beginning of the shift, one tablet four hours later, and one tablet at the end of the shift. Subjects did not know at the time whether they were taking No-Shift-Lag or the placebo.
The 26 subjects took the remedy or placebo on ten separate night shifts. Randomisation was executed by a mathematician who randomised the trial and labelling treatments so that they could be identified by the experimenters after the research had been completed.
After the shift was completed subjects filled in the survey forms. The questionnaire items related to how the subjects felt at the conclusion of the shift and was the same at the end of every shift and therefore every treatment whether placebo or remedy.
Results
Users taking No-Shift-Lag felt significantly more;
active, alert, awake, responsive and vital,
and significantly less;
foggy, woosy and wanting to sleep.
| Variable | Number of Cases | Mean | Mean difference | SD | SE of Mean | Levene's Test, f value | Levene's Test, p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | 95 | 3.4526 | 1.420 | 0.146 | |||
| No-Shift-Lag | 95 | 3.1979 | +0.2547 | 1.202 | 0.123 | 4.099 | 0.044 |
Users taking No-Shift-Lag felt significantly less annoyed.
| Variable | Number of Cases | Mean | Mean difference | SD | SE of Mean | Levene's Test, f value | Levene's Test, p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | 103 | 0.5340 | 0.872 | 0.086 | |||
| No-Shift-Lag | 101 | 0.3168 | +0.2171 | 0.706 | 0.070 | 6.369 | 0.012 |
Users taking No-Shift-Lag felt significantly less bad tempered.
| Variable | Number of Cases | Mean | Mean difference | SD | SE of Mean | Levene's Test, f value | Levene's Test, p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | 103 | 0.43699 | 0.813 | 0.080 | |||
| No-Shift-Lag | 101 | 0.2574 | +0.1795 | 0.658 | 0.065 | 6.829 | 0.010 |
Users taking No-Shift-Lag felt significantly less discouraged.
| Variable | Number of Cases | Mean | Mean difference | SD | SE of Mean | Levene's Test, f value | Levene's Test, p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | 103 | 0.3689 | 0.804 | 0.079 | |||
| No-Shift-Lag | 101 | 0.2079 | +0.1610 | 0.553 | 0.055 | 8.623 | 0.004 |
Users taking No-Shift-Lag felt significantly less forgetful.
| Variable | Number of Cases | Mean | Mean difference | SD | SE of Mean | Levene's Test, f value | Levene's Test, p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | 103 | 0.5825 | 0.924 | 0.091 | |||
| No-Shift-Lag | 101 | 0.4257 | +0.1568 | 0.698 | 0.069 | 5.291 | 0.022 |
Users taking No-Shift-Lag felt significantly less muddled.
| Variable | Number of Cases | Mean | Mean difference | SD | SE of Mean | Levene's Test, f value | Levene's Test, p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | 102 | 0.2843 | 0.709 | 0.070 | |||
| No-Shift-Lag | 101 | 0.1881 | +0.0962 | 0.561 | 0.056 | 3.411 | 0.066 |
Users taking No-Shift-Lag felt significantly less uncertain.
| Variable | Number of Cases | Mean | Mean difference | SD | SE of Mean | Levene's Test, f value | Levene's Test, p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | 103 | 0.2913 | 0.695 | 0.068 | |||
| No-Shift-Lag | 101 | 0.1782 | +0.1130 | 0.456 | 0.045 | 7.451 | 0.007 |
Users taking No-Shift-Lag felt significantly less worthless.
| Variable | Number of Cases | Mean | Mean difference | SD | SE of Mean | Levene's Test, f value | Levene's Test, p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | 103 | 0.1650 | 0.628 | 0.324 | |||
| No-Shift-Lag | 101 | 0.0693 | +0.0957 | 0.324 | 0.032 | 7.797 | 0.006 |
Users taking No-Shift-Lag felt significantly less uneasy.
| Variable | Number of Cases | Mean | Mean difference | SD | SE of Mean | Levene's Test, f value | Levene's Test, p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | 103 | 0.3204 | 0.0770 | 0.076 | |||
| No-Shift-Lag | 101 | 0.1881 | +0.1323 | 0.561 | 0.056 | 6.603 | 0.011 |
Users taking No-Shift-Lag felt significantly less weary.
| Variable | Number of Cases | Mean | Mean difference | SD | SE of Mean | Levene's Test, f value | Levene's Test, p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | 103 | 1.1650 | 1.138 | 0.112 | |||
| No-Shift-Lag | 101 | 0.9802 | +0.1849 | 0.9802 | 0.883 | 6.741 | 0.010 |
Users taking No-Shift-Lag felt significantly more peppy.
| Variable | Number of Cases | Mean | Mean difference | SD | SE of Mean | Levene's Test, f value | Levene's Test, p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | 103 | 1.4078 | 1.167 | 0.115 | |||
| No-Shift-Lag | 101 | 1.4752 | -0.0675 | 1.026 | 0.102 | 3.942 | 0.048 |
Users taking No-Shift-Lag felt significantly more energetic.
| Variable | Number of Cases | Mean | Mean difference | SD | SE of Mean | Levene's Test, f value | Levene's Test, p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | 103 | 1.7476 | 1.210 | 0.119 | |||
| No-Shift-Lag | 101 | 1.8020 | -0.0544 | 1.020 | 0.101 | 5.046 | 0.026 |
Users taking No-Shift-Lag felt significantly more lively.
| Variable | Number of Cases | Mean | Mean difference | SD | SE of Mean | Levene's Test, f value | Levene's Test, p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Placebo | 103 | 1.6019 | 1.097 | 0.108 | |||
| No-Shift-Lag | 101 | 1.8812 | -0.2792 | 0.993 | 0.099 | 5.609 | 0.019 |
Conclusions
The results of this study tallied with the results from informal testing of No-Shift-Lag, see previous file. Overall the results supported the use of No-Shift-Lag for alleviating shift lag and tiredness when caused by working night shifts.
Author:
Andrew Criglington
Director of Research
Miers Laboratories
Wellington 6038
New Zealand
Click below for information on: