Misplaced Pages

Talk:Chiropractic: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:52, 16 March 2008 editCorticoSpinal (talk | contribs)1,880 edits literature synthesis has been done, we can use the studies in the CCGPP; chiropractic evidence-based literature reviews are more appropriate for chiropractic← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:31, 4 December 2024 edit undo2607:fea8:4a62:2f00:ac7b:e1d:4396:ebb (talk) →Remove opening claims that chiropractic is based in esotericism and is a pseudoscience: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
'''''Do not use the plus sign above to start a new section. Keep the references list at the bottom.'''''
{{Talk header|search=no|noarchive=yes}}
{{talkheader}}
{{controversial}} {{Controversial}}
{{Calm talk}} {{Censor}}
{{Calm}}
{{cleanup taskforce closed|Chiropractic medicine}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{Rational Skepticism|class=A|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine|class=A}} {{WikiProject Chiropractic|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}}
{{Archive box collapsible|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=top}}
* ]
{{WikiProject Alternative Views |importance=mid}}
* ]
{{WikiProject Citizendium Porting|date=2009-06-28 |comment=The Citizendium article shows a strong POV and is mostly unverified, and its contents should be treated with caution as this violates core policies of Misplaced Pages. See ] and ].}}
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
}} }}
{{Copied|from1=Chiropractic|to1=Chiropractic treatment techniques
|from2=Chiropractic|to2=Veterinary chiropractic
|from3=Koren Specific Technique|to3=Chiropractic
|from4=Chiropractic|to4=Baby colic
|from5=Baby colic|to5=Chiropractic|from_oldid5=801357015|to_oldid5=801349349|to_diff5=801359943}}
{{Trolling}}


{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=acu|style=long}}
== Current Safety Text: Suggestions for improvement ==


{{User:MiszaBot/config
=== Safety ===
|archiveheader = {{aan}}

|maxarchivesize = 300K
{{See|Spinal adjustment#Safety|Spinal manipulation#Safety}}
|counter = 40

|minthreadsleft = 2
], the most common modality in chiropractic care, has been increasingly studied in recent years as critics and proponents debate the merits of its efficacy and safety. Spinal manipulation has generally regarded is a safe and effective procedure for the treatment of various mechanical low back pain syndromes.<ref name="Hurwitz">
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
{{cite news
|algo = old(30d)
|last=
|archive = Talk:Chiropractic/Archive %(counter)d
|first=
}}
|title=A randomized trial of chiropractic and medical care for patients with low back pain: eighteen-month follow-up outcomes from the UCLA low back pain study
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Chiropractic/Archive index|mask=Talk:Chiropractic/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}}
|url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16540862?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
{{Archives|search=yes|auto=short|bot=MiszaBot|age=30|index=Talk:Chiropractic/Archive index}}
|date=March 15, 2006
__TOC__
|work=]
== The section "History" could use an update ==
|publisher=]
|accessdate=2008-02-22
|quote=}}</ref><ref name="Ferreira">
{{cite news
|last=
|first=
|title=Does spinal manipulative therapy help people with chronic low back pain?
|url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12443522?dopt=Abstract
|date=2002
|work=
|publisher=The Australian Journal of Physiotherapy
|accessdate=2008-02-22
|quote=}}</ref><ref name="jrsm">
{{cite news
|last=
|first=
|title=A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation
|url=http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/full/99/4/192
|date=2006
|work=
|publisher=The Journal for the Royal Society of Medicine
|accessdate=2008-02-22
|quote=}}</ref><ref name="bmj">
{{cite news
|last=
|first=
|title=Chiropractic for low back pain
|url=http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/317/7152/160?ijkey=77a5ce709b030982bbb9d69c405da21e1dde18ef&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
|date=July 18, 1998
|work=
|publisher=BMJ Publishing Group
|accessdate=2008-02-22
|quote=}}</ref> <ref name="Myhrvold">
{{cite news
|last=Myhrvold
|first=K
|title=Chiropractic in general and in low back pain
|url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10394283?ordinalpos=18&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
|date=May 30, 1999
|work=
|publisher=Tidsskrift for den Norske Laegeforening
|accessdate=2008-02-22
|quote=}}</ref><ref name="Vernon">
{{cite news
|last=Vernon
|first=LF
|title=Spinal manipulation as a valid treatment for low back pain
|url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8867392?ordinalpos=23&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
|date=March 1996
|work=
|publisher=
|accessdate=2008-02-22
|quote=}}</ref> Cervical spine manipulation (particularly the upper cervical spine) has been a source of controversy. Critics have suggested that spinal manipulation is of limited benefit and a risk factor for vertebral basilar stroke and there needs to be more research to support its use whereas chiropractors have countered that cervical manipulation is a safe, effective and cost-effective alternate to conventional medical management for mechanical back and neck pain syndromes. <ref></ref><ref name="Ernst E 2008"/><ref name="stroke journal">
{{cite news
|last=
|first=
|title=Chiropractic Manipulation and Stroke
|url=http://stroke.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/32/5/1054?ijkey=a23bc16cc67bd96a313c73452be27478052baca4&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
|date=
|work=Stroke
|publisher=]
|accessdate=2008-02-22
|quote=}}</ref><ref name="Gouveia">
{{cite news
|last=
|first=
|title=Chiropractic manipulation: reasons for concern?
|url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17904731?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
|date=December 2007
|work=
|publisher=Clinical neurology and neurosurgery
|accessdate=2008-02-22
|quote=}}</ref><ref name="Koes">
{{cite news
|last=
|first=
|title=Spinal manipulation and mobilisation for back and neck pain: a blinded review
|url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1836153
|date=November 23, 1991
|work=
|publisher=BMJ Publishing Group
|accessdate=2008-02-22
|quote=}}</ref><ref name="Koes BW">
{{cite news
|last=
|first=
|title=Spinal manipulation for low back pain. An updated systematic review of randomized clinical trials
|url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9112710?dopt=Abstract
|date=December 15, 1996
|work=]
|publisher=]
|accessdate=2008-02-22
|quote=}}</ref><ref name="Ernst E 2008">
{{cite journal |journal= J Pain Symptom Manage |date=2008 |title= Chiropractic: a critical evaluation |author= Ernst E |pmid=18280103}}</ref><ref name="van der Heijden">
{{cite news
|last=van der Heijden
|first=GJ
|title=The efficacy of traction for back and neck pain: a systematic, blinded review of randomized clinical trial methods
|url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7846138?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlusDrugs1
|date=February 1995
|work=
|publisher=Physical Therapy
|accessdate=2008-02-22
|quote=}}</ref> Spinal manipulation poses a slight risk to the practitioner, particularly to the wrists, shoulder, and lumbar spine which may occur during the 'orientation' phase and the dynamic thrust phase of manipulation although these risk has not been quantified.<ref name=Triano>{{cite book |author= Triano J |chapter= The theoretical basis for spinal manipulation |pages=361–82 |title= Principles and Practice of Chiropractic |edition= 3rd ed. |editor= Haldeman S, Dagenais S, Budgell B ''et al.'' (eds.) |publisher=McGraw-Hill |date=2005 |isbn=0-07-137534-1}}</ref>

Spinal manipulation is a regulated/controlled medical intervention and can only be performed by chiropractors and a limited number of physical medicine professionals.{{fact}} Prior to the adminstration of spinal manipulative therapy, absolute ] must be screened out. These include inflammatory arthritides, fractures, dislocations, instabilities, bone weakening disorders, tumours, infections, acute trauma as well as various circulatory and neurological disorders. Although most contraindications apply only to spinal manipulation of the affected region, a few emergency conditions, such as ] defects is an absolute contraindication spinal manipulative therapy. <ref name=CCA-CFCREAB-CPG>{{cite journal |journal= J Can Chiropr Assoc |date=2005 |volume=49 |issue=3 |pages=158–209 |title= Chiropractic clinical practice guideline: evidence-based treatment of adult neck pain not due to whiplash |author= Anderson-Peacock E, Blouin JS, Bryans R ''et al.'' |url=http://www.jcca-online.org/Client/cca/jcca.nsf/objects/jcca-v49-3-158/$file/jcca-v49-3-158.pdf |format=PDF}} {{cite journal |journal= J Can Chiropr Assoc |date=2008 |volume=52 |issue=1 |pages=7–8 |title= A clinical practice guideline update from The CCA•CFCREAB-CPG |author= Anderson-Peacock E, Bryans B, Descarreaux M ''et al.'' |url=http://www.jcca-online.org/Client/cca/JCCA.nsf/objects/JCCA_March_2008_52_1/$file/jcca-v52-1-007.pdf |format=PDF}}</ref> In February 2008, the World Health Organization sponsored Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders, the largest and most comprehensive study on neck pain, diagnosis, prognosis and safety to date. This included a consensus of the top experts in the world whose findings were collated using a best-evidence synthesis, which addresses risk, prevention, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment risks and benefits.<ref></ref> With respect to the association of VBA stroke and cervical manipulation the study concluded:

<blockquote>
# Vertebrobasilar artery stroke is a rare event in the population.
# There is an association between vertebrobasilar artery stroke and chiropractic visits in those under 45 years of age.
#There is also an association between vertebrobasilar artery stroke and use of primary care physician visits in all age groups.
#no evidence of excess risk of VBA stroke associated chiropractic care.
# The increased risks of vertebrobasilar artery stroke associated with chiropractic and physician visits is likely explained by patients with vertebrobasilar dissection-related neck pain and headache consulting both chiropractors and primary care physicians before their VBA stroke."<ref>[http://www.fcer.org/html/News/bonejointdecade.htm</ref>
</blockquote>

A 2007 study which examined over 50 000 chiropractic spinal manipulations had no reports of serious adverse effects. The most common minor side effect was pain in the head, neck, arm or upper back; and stiffness of the neck, shoulder which occurred after, at worst, 16 in 1,000 (0.016%) treatments. Furthermore, the authors concluded that the risk of serious adverse effects was, at worst, 6 per 100,000 (0.006%) spinal manipulations. <s>Despite the controversy and skepticism regarding chiropractic spinal manipulation,</s> The World Health Organization states that " employed skilfully and appropriately, chiropractic care is safe and effective for the prevention and management of a number of health problems."<ref name=WHO-guidelines/>

===Comments on current safety===

The current rendition on safety acknowledges the following controversies: a) stroke/VBA, b)common side effects of SMT, c) critics claims d)contraindications to SMT. This all despite the relative risk of 0.000002% of serious injury which is far, far better than meds and surgery for the Tx of similar conditions. Yet Eubulides would have the readers believe that it's severely NPOV and because 1/2 the text is not dedicated Edzard Ernst it is severely lacking. DigitalC, myself, Levine2112 and Dematt feel that the current text is close to NPOV and can be tweaked whereas Eubulides and Quack Guru want a complete rewrite that is tantamount to fear mongering (which has not been addressed when asked). ] (]) 23:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
::::Where does this frequently mentioned stat come from? .0000002% is one in 500 million!CynRN] (]) 03:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I would go along with DigitalC's rewrite of this part: ''Spinal manipulation of the neck may be associated with frequent, mild, and transient adverse effects. The most common minor side effects reported in a 2007 study were new or worsening pain in the head, neck, arm or upper back; and stiffness of the neck, shoulder or arm''CynRN] (]) 03:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
: Thanks, I made that change to ], keeping the "transient" as you suggested. ] (]) 10:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

::::::::Sometimes a 0 or two gets tossed in there. That should be 1-5 million. My bad! ] (]) 05:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::Take the % off the end of it and you're OK!CynRN] (]) 06:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::::This version should be deleted off of Misplaced Pages. It is not NPOV. ] (]) 08:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Thanks for your input Mr. Guru; however a majority here disagree with your assertion. ] (]) 15:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we'll make better progress rewriting ] instead. ] does not devote 50% to Ernst; it's more like 25%, which is reasonable. Clearly ] is strongly POV against safety critics; minor patches will not fix this. ] (]) 10:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

::You and quack guru are the only ones who think this. We will not allocate any arbitrary number; it makes for a dull, wooden entry that is easily contested. Safety 3 is a cooked goose, and we've already stuck a fork in it. We will focus on improving the current section which is closer to a consensus amongst the majority of editors here than your rewrite. ] (]) 15:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

:::I disagree with that claim about what the consensus is. No arbitrary number is being asked for; an approximate value will do, which will allow enough freedom to avoid woodenness. The current ] allots way too little space to critical comments, and devotes way too much space to refuting them. ] (]) 22:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
::::Please re-read my comment. I suggest that the current text (in modified version here) is closer to reaching a consensus than Safety3. Tell me what specific critical comments you want listed or expanded, let's come up with good phrasing and we'll add them in. What specific refutations are you talking about? Task Force and Anglo European? They're both large studies which seemingly debunks a lot of myths, addresses incidence rates for minor and major side effects and as far as I am aware contain the best synthesis of literature re: cervical spinal manipulation and adverse effects. Also, both these studies support the plethora of other studies (which I have not listed due to WEIGHT reasons) which suggest a 1 in a 1-5 million chance of serious, permanent neurological impairment. ] (]) 22:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

::::::I have included another piece of Eubulides' safety3, namely the bit about visual defects as an absolute contraindication, a section now which is beginning to be a bit lengthy, IMO. Still, we will work to make sure we get it right and that all parties can live with it. ] (]) 23:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::::There is consensus among Wikipedians for the current Safety section in mainspace to be replaced based on the recent discussions. ] (]) 21:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::::This version was rejected by the community and there is a new and concise version in mainspace. ] (]) 02:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

== More comments on safety #3 ==

:::::Here is yet another version, with the contraindication part pared down:
:::::Chiropractic care in general, and chiropractic manipulation in particular, are safe treatments when employed skillfully and appropriately. However, '''chiropractic treatment is contraindicated for some conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis, broken bones, hematomas, vertebral dislocations or infection. '''

::::::Ok, it's an honest mistake, I know Cyndy, but the wording is incorrect. I treat patients with RA. Do I manipulate their spine, no. Do I help improve their biomechanics, function, (soft tissue techniques, neuromuscular reeeducation techniques, medical acupuncture, inflammation levels via natural anti-inflammatories (Omega 3, green tea) and inflammation reducing diets (cut out fats, particularly from dairy and meat products). prescribe them exercises and or programs, etc. Anyways, "chiropractic treatment" is not contraindicated for an RA, but SMT is, particularly to C1 (increased ADI to due transverse ligament laxity/rupture) It is subtle, but it's an important difference to note. ] (])
::::::I didn't notice ''treatment'' vs ''manipulation'' there. BTW, have you followed Dr. John McDougall's work and writings re. diet and arthritis? I've been interested in the diet link to many chronic diseases for almost 20 years.CynRN] (]) 05:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::::Actually no, Cyn, I had never heard of him but will look him up now. The diet recommendations for patients with inflammatory arthropathies or inflammation in general really just comes from an appreciation of physiological states and how we can manipulate our internal metabolic machinery by changing the "fuel" that it burns. By decreasing pro-inflammatory diet contents and increase anti-inflammatory compounds (when is the last time you heard an MD prescribe this(!) I know we can help manage symptoms. Inflammation is terrible for the nervous system. Many, many chronic pain states and syndromes have an underlying inflammatory component which munching on Flexerol is not going solve the problem. Patients must be pro-active, and the good doctor teaches them how to take care of themselves. Nature will take care of itself if you provide the right STIMULUS. I think DCs are way ahead of the game in their holistic approach towards health and I'm so glad that nurses have embraced this approach. It's such a fulfilling style of care and permeates to all aspects of the patients life. BTW, are you a nurse practitioner (they're called RN(EC) (extended class) here and I must say they do an excellent job and some deliver superior care than some of our MDs in town. (Disclaimer: I'm not against MDs, I highly respect their clinical skills and knowledge and they should be gatekeeper for most of medicine, but not neuromusculoskeletal medicine. )
::::::::::McDougall wrote several books, referenced with good studies. I just checked his website...pretty flashy these days. I'll put a link on your user page. No, I'm not an NP, I work on a neuro unit.CynRN] (]) 06:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::Rarely, spinal manipulation of the neck can also result in complications that can lead to permanent disability or death. A serious adverse effect is vertebral artery dissection, a tear in the artery that can lead to stroke. The incidence of severe effects is unknown, due to their rarity, to high levels of underreporting, and to the difficulty of linking manipulation to its adverse effects, although estimates range from 1 in 200,000 to 1 in several million cervical spine manipulations(58)(thiel)

:::::::This statement implies (and even states) causation which is not the case. There is an association, but so is there for MD care. That's because as Haldeman et al. concluded, these were strokes in progress and they were seeing a health care provider for help with latent symptoms. Now I know you've stated before that you thought DCs were poor screeners for stroke but I would disagree. We are well taught (at least in Canada) in school for the many hard and soft neurological signs, know how to do a proper cranial nerve exam, screening techniques (5Ds, 3Ns, 1A) etc. We experience daily the benefits of spinal manipulation to the quality of life to patients but that does not mean we adjust indiscriminately (at least not mixers/reformers). There is a time and place for SMT (though that does not preclude one from adjusting a lumbar spine, for example) and most DCs know this well. ] ([[User
talk:EBDCM|talk]]) 05:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Case reports tell us some strokes were precipitated immediately by the manipulation. Some people didn't have neck pain presenting. The Haldeman study is great, but does not cancel out all the other research showing evidence of risk. That study also hints that both DCs and GPs were pretty poor at picking up prodromal s/s of stroke.CynRN] (]) 06:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC).
:::::::Case reports are anecdotal. I also have anecdotal evidence of a patient that had (his first) seizure on his first visit to a chiropractor. He had the seizure before being seen by the chiropractor, while in the treatment room. If the seizure had occured 15 minutes later, we would also be seeing case reports that some seizures were precipitated immediately by manipulation. It is a temporal assocation, from which we CANNOT imply causation. ] (]) 23:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::Chiropractic services are associated with subsequent vertebrobasilar artery stroke in persons under 45 years of age, but general practitioner services have a similar association, suggesting that these associations are likely explained by preexisting conditions.(59)
:::::Chiropractic researchers emphasize that medical treatments for neck pain, such as ibuprofen or surgery, are much more dangerous than chiropractic treatment, and that benefits outweigh potential risks.(ref needed).
::::::::We don't need to unncessarily play this card and IMO, I would rather not do it. We cannot speak for all chiropractors and I doubt DC/PhDs are spending proving repetitive Tylenol use burns a hole in your stomach. We need to flesh out WHO Task Force more, the conclusions listed (5) go together as they're inter-related and are necessary for sufficient context. Also, we need to acknowledge the breadth of the study because otherwise why should we care about its conclusions? I don't think that you appreciate the magnitude of the study done. If you really are interested in cervical spinal manipulation and neck pain you must get the February isssue of Spine 2008; some of these projects were 6 years in length. The amount of citations, and meta-analyses is impressive. And yet Eubulides wants an Ernst paper (1 man's opinion) to get equal weight with the 500-1000 contributors of the WHO study and the entire Feb issue of Spine. It's ridiculous. Anyways, we are making some progress now and I will incorporate DigitalCs suggestion that you agreed with and attempt to get your edit in there as well. Language will be the key so let's focus on that. ] (]) 05:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::I was about to comment, before I saw your reply, that the Bone and Joint study should have more emphasis in the last paragraph of safety #3, as it is a notable study, as long as the critical studies are cited as well, earlier. Comparison to advil/surgery doesn't need to be there, OK.CynRN] (]) 05:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::How could it be emphasized more? Here is all that the main Task Force source (PMID 18204400) says about chiropractic safety:
:::::::"There was an association between chiropractic services and subsequent vertebrobasilar artery stroke in persons under 45 years of age, but a similar association was also observed among patients receiving general practitioner services. This is likely explained by patients with vertebrobasilar artery dissection-related neck pain or headache seeking care before having their stroke."
::::::The unstruck ] summarizes it this way:
:::::::"Chiropractic services are associated with subsequent vertebrobasilar artery stroke in persons under 45 years of age, but general practitioner services have a similar association, suggesting that these associations are likely explained by preexisting conditions."
::::::How could this be rewritten to emphasize the task force results more? The intent here is only minor editing for brevity; it isn't supposed to omit any of the points of the original. But if something is missing, what is it? ] (]) 08:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::::(I moved all this as it was about safety #3, not current safety.) Sorry.CynRN] (]) 07:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

:x
Is there another word we can use than <i>critics</i>? It is a WP:WEASEL word. ] (]) 06:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::It's balanced by "proponents". Is it "weasel" to acknowledge that chiropractic has critics?CynRN] (]) 07:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::::I agree with Cyn, I think critics is OK because it's balanced out. Perhaps skeptics could be substituted if there is a consensus for that. We just need to make sure that critics/skeptics, contraindications, adverse reactions, etc.. do not have too much weight; especially given the fact that is is much safer than NSAIDs and surgery neither of which have drummed up as much needless (IMO) controversy as SMT. ] (]) 23:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

::::::There are different types of critics. For example, take a look at this website. http://www.vocact.com/index.php ] (]) 07:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

==Protected==
I have protected the page due to ongoing edit warring. The protection lasts for one week. Please use that time to establish a consensus on what to include and not include on this talk page. If you come to a consensus before then, you can request earlier unprotection at ]. ] (]) 09:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

==Removal of inappropriate warning tag==
This has been discussed at length yesterday. Whatever the problems here at Chiropractic, the extension of the Homeopathy warning tag to here is an aggression that would be a false and dangerous policy precedent. I am not involved in Homeopathy, Chiropractic or their articles, although I have voted in a few minor AfD/RfC matters distantly related to Chiro where other ongoing WP policy or POV problems were involved.--] (]) 18:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
:I'm not aware of any good reason for a probation tag here. I support the use of the usual, objective remedies such as 3RR, and oppose giving admins extra powers to define users as disruptive according to subjective opinion. --] (]) 19:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
::We need to give admins super powers to stop all the disruptive people on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 10:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

== Safety (oh my) ==

{{See|Spinal adjustment#Safety|Spinal manipulation#Safety|Scientific investigation of chiropractic#Safety}}

Chiropractic care in general, and chiropractic manipulation in particular, are safe treatments when employed skilfully and appropriately. As with all treatments, ]s can arise and there are known contraindications and risks.<ref name=WHO-guidelines>{{cite paper |author= World Health Organization |date=2005 |title= WHO guidelines on basic training and safety in chiropractic |url=http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/traditional/Chiro-Guidelines.pdf |format=PDF |accessdate=2008-03-03}}</ref>

Absolute ]s, which prohibit employing manipulation, include ], ]s resulting from one-time injuries, ]s, ]s, ] of a ], bone or joint ], and many other factors. Relative complications, which mean the increased risk is acceptable under some conditions, include ], ], disk ]s, ] or ] therapy, and many other factors.<ref name=WHO-guidelines/> Although most contraindications apply only to manipulation of the affected region, there are a few exceptions, for example, all chiropractic cervical treatment is contraindicated by a sudden, severe and persistent ] unlike previously experienced headaches.<ref name=CCA-CFCREAB-CPG>{{cite journal |journal= J Can Chiropr Assoc |date=2005 |volume=49 |issue=3 |pages=158–209 |title= Chiropractic clinical practice guideline: evidence-based treatment of adult neck pain not due to whiplash |author= Anderson-Peacock E, Blouin JS, Bryans R ''et al.'' |url=http://www.jcca-online.org/Client/cca/jcca.nsf/objects/jcca-v49-3-158/$file/jcca-v49-3-158.pdf |format=PDF}} {{cite journal |journal= J Can Chiropr Assoc |date=2008 |volume=52 |issue=1 |pages=7–8 |title= A clinical practice guideline update from The CCA•CFCREAB-CPG |author= Anderson-Peacock E, Bryans B, Descarreaux M ''et al.'' |url=http://www.jcca-online.org/Client/cca/JCCA.nsf/objects/JCCA_March_2008_52_1/$file/jcca-v52-1-007.pdf |format=PDF}}</ref>

Spinal manipulation is ] with frequent, mild and transient adverse effects, which two prospective studies reported occur in 30% to 61% of patients.<ref name=Ernst-adverse>{{cite journal |journal= J R Soc Med |date=2007 |volume=100 |issue=7 |pages=330–8 |title= Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review |author= Ernst E |pmid=17606755 |url=http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/full/100/7/330}}</ref> The most common minor side effects reported in a 2007 study of cervical spine manipulation were new or worsening neck pain (reported for about 7.3% of consultations during the follow-up period), shoulder or arm pain (4.8%), reduced movement or stiffness of neck, shoulder, or arm (3.9%), headache (3.9%), upper, mid back pain (2.5%), numb or tingling upper limbs (1.3%), and fainting, dizziness, or light-headedness (1.1%).<ref name=Thiel>{{cite journal |journal=Spine |date=2007 |volume=32 |issue=21 |pages=2375–8 |title= Safety of chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine: a prospective national survey |author= Thiel HW, Bolton JE, Docherty S, Portlock JC |pmid=17906581}}</ref>

Spinal manipulation, particularly on the upper spine, can also result in rare, serious complications that can lead to permanent disability or death. The most commonly reported serious adverse effect is ], a tear in the artery that can lead to ]. The ] of severe effects is unknown, due to their rarity, to high levels of underreporting, and to the difficulty of linking manipulation to its adverse effects.<ref name=Ernst-adverse/><ref name="Mike Fillon">
{{cite news
|last=Fillon
|first=Mike
|title=Stroke Risks From Spinal Manipulation Unknown
|url=http://www.webmd.com/news/20000522/stroke-risks-from-spinal-manipulation-unknown
|date=May 22, 2000
|work=
|publisher=]
|accessdate=2008-03-03
|quote=}}</ref> Chiropractic services are associated with subsequent ] in persons under 45 years of age, but general practitioner services have a similar association, suggesting that these associations are likely explained by preexisting conditions.<ref name=BJD-ES>{{cite journal |journal=Spine |date=2008 |volume=33 |issue= 4 Suppl |pages=S5–7 |title= The Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders: executive summary |author= Haldeman S, Carroll L, Cassidy JD, Schubert J, Nygren Å |doi=10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181643f40 |pmid=18204400 |url=http://www.spinejournal.com/pt/re/spine/fulltext.00007632-200802151-00004.htm}}
</ref> Spinal manipulation is common among children; serious adverse events have been identified, but their incidence is unknown.<ref name=Vohra>{{cite journal |journal=Pediatrics |date=2007 |volume=119 |issue=1 |pages=e275–83 |title= Adverse events associated with pediatric spinal manipulation: a systematic review |author= Vohra S, Johnston BC, Cramer K, Humphreys K |doi=10.1542/peds.2006-1392 |pmid=17178922 |url=http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/119/1/e275}}</ref>

Manipulation poses a minor risk to the chiropractor, particularly to the wrists, shoulder, and lumbar spine. The main risky activities seem to be transferring patients to positions and applying dynamic treatments. This risk has not been quantified.<ref name=Triano>{{cite book |author= Triano J |chapter= The theoretical basis for spinal manipulation |pages=361–82 |title= Principles and Practice of Chiropractic |edition= 3rd ed. |editor= Haldeman S, Dagenais S, Budgell B ''et al.'' (eds.) |publisher=McGraw-Hill |date=2005 |isbn=0-07-137534-1}}</ref>

A study concluded, "Initial studies have found massage to be effective for persistent back pain. Spinal manipulation has small clinical benefits that are equivalent to those of other commonly used therapies. The effectiveness of acupuncture remains unclear. All of these treatments seem to be relatively safe. Preliminary evidence suggests that massage, but not acupuncture or spinal manipulation, may reduce the costs of care after an initial course of therapy."<ref>{{cite journal |journal= Ann Intern Med |date=June 3, 2003 |volume= 138 |issue= 11 |pages= 898-906 |title= A review of the evidence for the effectiveness, safety, and cost of acupuncture, massage therapy, and spinal manipulation for back pain |author= Cherkin DC, Sherman KJ, Deyo RA, Shekelle PG. |pmid= 12779300 |url= http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/138/11/898.pdf |format=PDF}}</ref> Another study stated, "Although the risk of injury associated with MCS appears to be small, this type of therapy has the potential to expose patients to vertebral artery damage that can be avoided with the use of mobilization (nonthrust passive movements)."<ref name="Di Fabio">Di Fabio RP. "" ''Phys Ther.'' 1999 Jan;79(1):50-65. </ref> Spinal manipulation for the lower back seems to be relatively cost-effective.<ref>{{cite journal |journal= J Manipulative Physiol Ther |date=2005 |volume=28 |issue=8 |pages=555-63 |title= Cost-effectiveness of medical and chiropractic care for acute and chronic low back pain |author= Haas M, Sharma R, Stano M |doi=10.1016/j.jmpt.2005.08.006 |pmid=16226622}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |journal=Spine |date=1998 |volume=23 |issue=17 |pages=1875–83 |title= One-year follow-up comparison of the cost and effectiveness of chiropractic and physiotherapy as primary management for back pain: subgroup analysis, recurrence, and additional health care utilization |author= Skargren EI, Carlsson PG, Öberg BE |pmid=9762745}}</ref>

=== Safety (oh my) comments ===

Here is an expanded version. It is complete and not short. FYI, ''']''' is a ]. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable. ] (]) 05:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

: My kneejerk reaction is that it's too long for ]. It is not that much shorter than ], for example. Its last paragraph is not just about safety, it's also about efficacy and cost-benefit, and the safety bit seems repetitive; it can go. Other ways to trim include removing some of the more-detailed statistics and some of the contraindications, and a few other phrases; but then we are approximating ] (assuming no strikes), no? Let's put it this way: is there anything crucial in this version that is not in ]? ] (]) 08:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
::I prefer Safety 3, as it is more concise. In addition, the last paragraph seems very out of place. Comments on massage and acupuncture belong on the safety sections of those articles. ] (]) 09:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Efficacy and cost-benefit is related and this version is not vague. Perhaps bits of this version could be tightened. Please discuss. ] (]) 20:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
:::I made some simple adjustments. This version is not too short and not too long and has the detailed facts. Removing the detailed facts creates vagueness. The safety 3 short and vague version is <u>nonsensical</u>. This version is ]. ] (]) 20:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
::::*I agree that cost-benefit is related, but one problem at a time. This thread is about ] and a replacement for that section should focus on safety. Efficacy and cost-benefit are better left for another (yet-to-be-written) section. Perhaps we can start drafting that section now, but it is a different section.
::::*What is nonsensical about the ] draft? I am referring to the , not to older versions that contained so many strikeouts that they were indeed nonsensical. What important points are missing in ] but present in ]? All other things being equal, shorter is better, and there is limited space in this article.
::::] (]) 23:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::The safety 3 is a bit vague. For example, see the missing details of the children's study. The safety 3 does not mention risk-beneft or compares spinal manipulations versus other methods. Additions of efficacy and risk-benefit may help with the some of the missing pieces. ] (]) 00:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::Which missing details are those? Here's what ] says about children:
:::::::Spinal manipulation, particularly on the upper spine, can also result in rare, serious complications that can lead to permanent disability or death.… Spinal manipulation is common among children; serious adverse events have been identified, but their incidence is unknown.
::::::Here's what ] says:
:::::::Spinal manipulation, particularly on the upper spine, can also result in rare complications that can lead to permanent disability or death; these can occur in adults and children.
::::::I don't see any details missing about adverse effects in children. Neither version gives any details about adverse effects on children in particular. ] says only one thing about children that ] doesn't, namely that spinal manipulation is common among children. But that is not a safety topic per se; it's more of a prevalance-of-chiropractic topic.
::::::As for risk-benefit, if the intended topic of ] also includes efficacy and cost-benefit, then the section needs to be retitled and a lot more emphasis needs to be placed on efficacy and cost-benefit (currently, it's almost all about safety, which is unbalanced). But that will be quite a bit of work. I'd rather get safety fixed, then worry about efficacy and cost-benefit in new (yet-to-be-written) sections. ] (]) 00:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Spinal manipulation is common among children; serious adverse events have been identified, but their incidence is unknown. Here is the complete sentence in this version above. Please review this sentence. ] (]) 00:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::::That 17-word sentence makes the following points:
::::::::#Spinal manipulation is common among children.
::::::::#Serious adverse events have been identified among children whose spines have been manipulated.
::::::::#The incidence rate of these events is unknown.
::::::::] makes the last two points. It does not make the first one, but (1) is not really a safety issue; it is a prevalence issue, one that might better be made in some other section. ] uses 2 words "and children" to make the last two points; that's far more compact than ]'s 17 words. Let's keep it short. ] (]) 00:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::It is short but missing one point. ] (]) 00:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Maybe in introductory sentence to summarize the sections will work. Here is an example:
:::::::::], the most common modality in chiropractic care for adults and children, has been increasingly studied in recent years as researchers evaluate its efficacy and safety. ] (]) 00:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::*The first half of that sentence ("], the most common modality in chiropractic care for adults and children") needs a citation, and would be more appropriate for ].
::::::::::*The second half of that sentence is somewhat redundant ("studied" / "evaluated"), a bit questionable ("increasingly"? really? what's the source?), and focuses too much on researchers and too little on chiropractic. The article should focus on chiropractic, and mention researchers only in citations. The topic here is chiropractic, not researchers.
::::::::::] (]) 01:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::Okay. This can be archived now to focus on Safety 3. ] (]) 10:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
===]===

] is the most common modality in chiropractic care.

This might work. ] (]) 05:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
:I added it to the article. Thanks, ] (]) 02:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
::Can you find a peer-reviewed source instead, QG? I doubt this would be disputed as it is common knowledge, but I know for sure there's a reference out there that is "iron clad". ] (]) 02:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
:::We're already using the NBCE source for that; it's not published in a peer-reviewed journal, but it's more reliable than a random website, so to help improve things I it. ] (]) 02:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

== Sources for effectiveness ==

Here are some sources for the efficacy and/or effectiveness of chiropractic; the idea is that a companion section to ] should be written, that talks about effectiveness. A cost-benefit discussion is also needed and can be done later; these citations are aimed just at effectiveness.

I started looking for sources by using the Pubmed query "chiropractic effectiveness" and looking for reviews published 2005 or later, and added effectivess-related sources mentioned in the safety discussion above. Obviously this is not complete; more searching needs to be done. It's only a start. ] (]) 17:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

:I hope you don't mind adding straight to the list. Hopefully I didn't mess it up, I've never cited before, and find it a little confusing. ] (]) 23:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

::Not at all. And thanks. The main thing is to get a PMID or a DOI or a stable URL; we can worry about the details later. ] (]) 23:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

:::DOI: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2007.01.009 looks useful for benefit (even though it is a primary source), as well as for integrated-medicine. Another 2 primary sources DOI: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2006.12.011 & DOI: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2006.06.022. Will try to look for more reviews. ] (]) 23:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

:::: I dunno, those all look fairly run-of-the-mill; I may be missing something, but I don't detect anything that would overrule the secondary sources we already have. Generally speaking, a primary source in a crowded area like this should be used only when it's too new to be reviewed and is obviously of high quality and says something new and important. ] (]) 05:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::Is there a reason the literature synthesis by the CCGPP on management of low back pain and related leg complaints has not been included? ] (]) 22:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::No; do you have a citation of the latest version? That would save me the work of tracking it down (which I had to do for ther practice guideline, updated this year, for neck pain). ] (]) 23:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::::http://www.ccgpp.org/lowbackliterature.pdf ] (]) 00:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Thanks; I that. ] (]) 05:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

=== Spinal manipulation ===

* {{cite journal |journal= J Manipulative Physiol Ther |date=2005 |volume=28 |issue=6 |pages=429–42 |title= High-velocity low-amplitude spinal manipulation for symptomatic lumbar disk disease: a systematic review of the literature |author= Lisi AJ, Holmes EJ, Ammendolia C |doi=10.1016/j.jmpt.2005.06.013 |pmid=16096043}}

* {{cite journal |journal= J Manipulative Physiol Ther |date=2005 |volume=28 |issue=4 |pages=266–73 |title= Distraction manipulation of the lumbar spine: a review of the literature |author= Gay RE, Bronfort G, Evans RL |doi=10.1016/j.jmpt.2005.03.012 |pmid=15883580}}

* {{cite journal |journal= J R Soc Med |date=2006 |volume=99 |issue=4 |pages=192–6 |title= A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation |author= Ernst E, Canter PH |pmid=16574972 |url=http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/full/99/4/192}}

* The following reviews are a pair; the first is more critical of chiropractic and the second more supportive. They cover more than just effectiveness, but they have effectiveness sections.
:*{{cite journal |journal= Clin Orthop Relat Res |date=2006 |volume=444 |pages=236–42 |title= Chiropractic: history and overview of theories and methods |author= Homola S |doi=10.1097/01.blo.0000200258.95865.87 |pmid=16446588}}
:*{{cite journal |journal= Clin Orthop Relat Res |date=2006 |volume=444 |pages=243–9 |title= History and overview of theories and methods of chiropractic: a counterpoint |author= DeVocht JW |doi=10.1097/01.blo.0000203460.89887.8d |pmid=16523145}}

* {{cite journal |journal= Spine J |date=2008 |volume=8 |issue=1 |pages=213–25 |title= Evidence-informed management of chronic low back pain with spinal manipulation and mobilization |author= Bronfort G, Haas M, Evans R, Kawchuk G, Dagenais S |doi=10.1016/j.spinee.2007.10.023 |pmid=18164469}}

=== Specific conditions ===
These reviews are from the point of view of the condition, not the treatment; they typically cover chiropractic along with several other treatments. As such, they'd be appropriate only for very brief mentions in ].

==== Neck pain and disorders ====

* {{cite journal |journal=Spine |date=2008 |volume=33 |issue= 4 Suppl |pages=S5–7 |title= The Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders: executive summary |author= Haldeman S, Carroll L, Cassidy JD, Schubert J, Nygren Å |doi=10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181643f40 |pmid=18204400 |url=http://www.spinejournal.com/pt/re/spine/fulltext.00007632-200802151-00004.htm}} This is an executive summary (which briefly talks about effectiveness) of a series of studies and reviews.
:*{{cite journal |journal=Spine |date=2008 |volume=33 |issue= 4 Suppl |pages=S123–52 |title= Treatment of neck pain: noninvasive interventions: results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders |author= Hurwitz EL, Carragee EJ, van der Velde G |doi=10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181644b1d |pmid=18204386}} This is a review of interventions, which contains more detail on effectiveness. It is briefly summarized in the executive summary noted above.

* {{cite journal |journal= Eura Medicophys |date=2007 |volume=43 |issue=1 |pages=91–118 |title= Manual therapy for neck pain: an overview of randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews |author= Vernon H, Humphreys BK |pmid=17369783 |url=http://www.minervamedica.it/pdf/R33Y2007/R33Y2007N01A0091.pdf |format=PDF}}

* {{cite journal |journal= Cochrane Database Syst Rev |date=2005 |issue=3 |pages=CD004250 |title= Exercises for mechanical neck disorders |author= Kay TM, Gross A, Goldsmith C ''et al.'' |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD004250.pub3 |pmid=16034925}}

* {{cite journal |journal= J Manipulative Physiol Ther |date=2005 |volume=28 |issue=7 |pages=520–5 |title= Chiropractic manipulation and acute neck pain: a review of the evidence |author= Haneline MT |doi=10.1016/j.jmpt.2005.07.010 |pmid=16182027}}

==== Other musculoskeletal problems ====

* Arm/neck/shoulder: {{cite journal |journal= Cochrane Database Syst Rev |date=2006 |issue=3 |pages=CD003471 |title= Ergonomic and physiotherapeutic interventions for treating work-related complaints of the arm, neck or shoulder in adults |author= Verhagen AP, Karels C, Bierma-Zeinstra SM ''et al.'' |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD003471.pub3 |pmid=16856010}}

* Upper extremities: {{cite journal |journal= J Manipulative Physiol Ther |date=2008 |volume=31 |issue=2 |pages=146–59 |title= Chiropractic treatment of upper extremity conditions: a systematic review |author= McHardy A, Hoskins W, Pollard H, Onley R, Windsham R |doi=10.1016/j.jmpt.2007.12.004 |pmid=18328941}}

* Whiplash: {{cite journal |journal= Pain Res Manag |date=2005 |volume=10 |issue=1 |pages=21–32 |title= Treatment of whiplash-associated disorders—part I: non-invasive interventions |author= Conlin A, Bhogal S, Sequeira K, Teasell R |pmid=15782244}}

* Low back pain and related leg: {{cite web |title= Chiropractic management of low back pain and low back related leg complaints |author= Meeker W, Branson R, Bronfert G ''et al.'' |url=http://ccgpp.org/lowbackliterature.pdf |format=PDF |date=2007 |accessdate=2008-03-13 |publisher= Council on Chiropractic Guidelines and Practice Parameters}}

* Lower extremities: {{cite journal |journal= J Manipulative Physiol Ther |date=2006 |volume=29 |issue=8 |pages=658–71 |title= Chiropractic treatment of lower extremity conditions: a literature review |author= Hoskins W, McHardy A, Pollard H, Windsham R, Onley R |doi=10.1016/j.jmpt.2006.08.004 |pmid=17045100}}

* Adult ]: {{cite journal |journal=Spine |date=2007 |volume=32 |issue= 19 Suppl |pages=S130–4 |title= A systematic literature review of nonsurgical treatment in adult scoliosis |author= Everett CR, Patel RK |doi=10.1097/BRS.0b013e318134ea88 |pmid=17728680}}

==== Headache ====

* {{cite journal |journal=Headache |date=2005 |volume=45 |issue=6 |pages=738–46 |title= Physical treatments for headache: a structured review |doi=10.1111/j.1526-4610.2005.05141.x |author= Biondi DM |pmid=15953306}}
* {{cite journal |journal= Clin J Pain |date=2006 |volume=22 |issue=3 |pages=278–85 |title= Are manual therapies effective in reducing pain from tension-type headache?: a systematic review |author= Fernández-de-Las-Peñas C, Alonso-Blanco C, Cuadrado ML, Miangolarra JC, Barriga FJ, Pareja JA |doi=10.1097/01.ajp.0000173017.64741.86 |pmid=16514329}}

==== Other problems ====

* ]: {{cite journal |journal= Paediatr Nurs |date=2007 |volume=19 |issue=8 |pages=26 |title= Effectiveness of chiropractic treatment for infantile colic |author= Kingston H |pmid=17970361}}
* ]: {{cite journal |journal= Curr Pharm Des |date=2006 |volume=12 |issue=1 |pages=47–57 |title= Complementary and alternative medical therapies in fibromyalgia |author= Sarac AJ, Gur A |pmid=16454724}}
* ]: {{cite journal |journal= Cochrane Database Syst Rev |date=2005 |issue=2 |pages=CD005230 |title= Complementary and miscellaneous interventions for nocturnal enuresis in children |author= Glazener CM, Evans JH, Cheuk DK |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD005230 |pmid=15846744}}
* ]: {{cite journal |journal= Cochrane Database Syst Rev |date=2006 |issue=3 |pages=CD002119 |title= Spinal manipulation for primary and secondary dysmenorrhoea |author= Proctor ML, Hing W, Johnson TC, Murphy PA |doi=10.1002/14651858.CD002119.pub3 |pmid=16855988}}
* Nonmusculoskeletal conditions: {{cite journal |journal= J Altern Complement Med |date=2007 |volume=13 |issue=5 |pages=491–512 |title= Chiropractic care for nonmusculoskeletal conditions: a systematic review with implications for whole systems research |author= Hawk C, Khorsan R, Lisi AJ, Ferrance RJ, Evans MW |doi=10.1089/acm.2007.7088 |pmid=17604553}}

=== Quality of clinical trials ===
* Headache: {{cite journal |journal= J Orthop Sports Phys Ther |date=2006 |volume=36 |issue=3 |pages=160–9 |title= Methodological quality of randomized controlled trials of spinal manipulation and mobilization in tension-type headache, migraine, and cervicogenic headache |author= Fernández-de-las-Peñas C, Alonso-Blanco C, San-Roman J, Miangolarra-Page JC |pmid=16596892}}
* Low back pain: {{cite journal |journal= J Manipulative Physiol Ther |date=2006 |volume=29 |issue=7 |pages=576–81, 581.e1–2 |title= Inconsistent grading of evidence across countries: a review of low back pain guidelines |author= Murphy AY, van Teijlingen ER, Gobbi MO |doi=10.1016/j.jmpt.2006.07.005 |pmid=16949948}}

=== Patient satisfaction ===
* {{cite journal |journal= J Manipulative Physiol Ther |date=2006 |volume=29 |issue=6 |pages=455–62 |title= Factors associated with patient satisfaction with chiropractic care: survey and review of the literature |author= Gaumer G |doi=10.1016/j.jmpt.2006.06.013 |pmid=16904491}} This source is already used in ] but would seem appropriate for an ''Effectiveness'' section too.

=== Primary studies ===
These are primary studies, and as per ] should not be relied on as heavily as secondary stories.

*{{cite journal |journal= J Manipulative Physiol Ther |date=2007 |volume=30 |issue=6 |pages=408–18 |title= The benefits outweigh the risks for patients undergoing chiropractic care for neck pain: a prospective, multicenter, cohort study |author= Rubinstein SM, Leboeuf-Yde C, Knol DL, de Koekkoek TE, Pfeifle CE, van Tulder MW |doi=10.1016/j.jmpt.2007.04.013 |pmid=17693331}} This is probably more useful for a risk-benefit section (which would be some new section after "Effectiveness").

== Sources for risk-benefit and cost-effectiveness ==

These sources attempt to review the risks of chiropractic as compared to its benefits, and/or the cost-effectiveness of chiropractic.

=== Older sources ===

These citations predate 2005 and are getting a bit long in the tooth. It'd be better to use newer citations if available, if ones of similar quality can be found. ] (]) 22:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

* {{cite journal |journal=Spine |date=1998 |volume=23 |issue=17 |pages=1875–83 |title= One-year follow-up comparison of the cost and effectiveness of chiropractic and physiotherapy as primary management for back pain: subgroup analysis, recurrence, and additional health care utilization |author= Skargren EI, Carlsson PG, Öberg BE |pmid=9762745}}

* {{cite journal |journal=Phys Ther |year=1999 |volume=79 |issue=1 |pages=50-65 |title= Manipulation of the Cervical Spine Risks and Benefits |author= Di Fabio RP |pmid=9920191 |url=http://www.ptjournal.org/cgi/content/full/79/1/50}}

* {{cite journal |journal=Stroke |year=2001 |volume=32 |issue=5 |pages=1054–60 |title= Chiropractic manipulation and stroke: a population-based case-control study |author= Rothwell DM, Bondy SJ, Williams JI |pmid=11340209 |url=http://stroke.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/32/5/1054}}

* {{cite journal |journal= Ann Intern Med |date=2003 |volume=138 |issue=11 |pages=871–81 |title= Spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain. A meta-analysis of effectiveness relative to other therapies |author= Assendelft WJ, Morton SC, Yu EI, Suttorp MJ, Shekelle PG |pmid=12779297 |url=http://annals.org/cgi/content/full/138/11/871}}

* {{cite journal |journal= Ann Intern Med |date=June 3, 2003 |volume= 138 |issue= 11 |pages= 898-906 |title= A review of the evidence for the effectiveness, safety, and cost of acupuncture, massage therapy, and spinal manipulation for back pain |author= Cherkin DC, Sherman KJ, Deyo RA, Shekelle PG. |pmid= 12779300 |url= http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/138/11/898.pdf |format=PDF}}

=== Newer cost-effectiveness sources ===

* {{cite journal |journal= Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol |date=2005 |volume=19 |issue=4 |pages=671–84 |title= What is the most cost-effective treatment for patients with low back pain? A systematic review |author= van der Roer N, Goossens ME, Evers SM, van Tulder MW |doi=10.1016/j.berh.2005.03.007 |pmid=15949783}}

* {{cite journal |journal= J Manipulative Physiol Ther |date=2005 |volume=28 |issue=8 |pages=555-63 |title= Cost-effectiveness of medical and chiropractic care for acute and chronic low back pain |author= Haas M, Sharma R, Stano M |doi=10.1016/j.jmpt.2005.08.006 |pmid=16226622}}

* {{cite journal |journal= Evid Based Complement Alternat Med |date=2006 |volume=3 |issue=4 |pages=425–32 |title= Cost-effectiveness of complementary therapies in the United kingdom—a systematic review |author= Canter PH, Coon JT, Ernst E |doi=10.1093/ecam/nel044 |pmid=17173105 |url=http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/3/4/425}}

* {{cite journal |journal= J R Soc Med |date=2006 |volume=99 |issue=4 |pages=192–6 |title= A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation |author= Ernst E, Canter PH |pmid=16574972 |url=http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/full/99/4/192}}

=== Newer risk-benefit sources ===

* {{cite journal |journal= J Manipulative Physiol Ther |date=2007 |volume=30 |issue=6 |pages=408–18 |title= The benefits outweigh the risks for patients undergoing chiropractic care for neck pain: a prospective, multicenter, cohort study |author= Rubinstein SM, Leboeuf-Yde C, Knol DL, de Koekkoek TE, Pfeifle CE, van Tulder MW |doi=10.1016/j.jmpt.2007.04.013 |pmid=17693331}} This is just a single study.

== POV issues as of 2008-03-12 ==
===2008-03-12 issues list===
Here is a list of POV problem areas that I see with ] as it stands . Fixing these problems would suffice to remove the NPOV tag. Comments welcome.

: I have struck out items that are done. ] (]) 22:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

* <s>] devotes too little to criticism and too much to rebuttal of criticism. ] is a draft of a replacement, which should fix the problem. This draft has gone through a lot of edits and is ready to go in.</s>
::Agree that ] is an improvement that is close to NPOV. I notice a lot of good hard work there. -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 03:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Thanks. I . ] (]) 16:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

* <s>] spends too much time talking about objective straights and reformers, splinter groups that do not seem to exist any more as organized groups. No citations are given for the discussion of these groups (there is one citation for reformers, but it's a dangling link). The simplest fix is to remove this discussion.</s> (; see ] below)
::Agree. -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 03:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
:::OK, please see ] below. ] (]) 20:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

* <s>]'s last paragraph, which advocates a D.C.M. degree, cites six sources, none of which talk about D.C.M. This paragraph should be removed, or should be properly sourced and rewritten to remove its advocacy. The existing sources should be removed, or moved to appropriate parts of the article.</s> ( by removing the sources; see ] below)
::Agree needs appropriate verifiable clarification. -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 03:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
:::OK, please see ] below. ] (]) 20:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

* <s>] has an unsourced claim that needs sourcing.</s> ( by removing the claim)
::Off the top of my head can't remember that sentence, though anything we had did have sources, just might have to dig it out. -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 03:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
:::That sentence was re-added , on 2008-02-29, with a change log entry "restored well known fact; will provide reference". As far as I know the claim has never been sourced. ] (]) 05:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

* ] has the following non-neutral statements that need rewording:
**"Palmer had discovered that manual manipulation of the spine could result in improved neurological function." It is controversial whether Palmer's treatment actually improved neurological function.
**The wording "Nevertheless, the debate about the need to remove the concept of subluxation from the chiropractic paradigm" is slightly biased, and would be more-neutrally phrased as "Nevertheless, the debate about whether to keep the concept of subluxation in the chiropractic paradigm".
::Agree, though the second is not a complete sentence. Perhaps "..the debate ''continues'' about.." -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 03:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
:::The second quote is taken from the complete sentence "Nevertheless, the debate about the need to remove the concept of subluxation from the chiropractic paradigm has been ongoing since the mid 1960s." The end of the sentence would remain unchanged. ] (]) 06:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

* Many phrases are inserted to strengthen the argument for chiropractic by giving the qualifications of sources when they are favorable to chiropractic. Sources should be mentioned in the citation, not in the main text; there is no need to puff up the main text. The following quotes can be removed (with some rewording necessary to fill the gaps):
**<s>"the ] defined"</s> ()
**<s>"Anthony Rosner PhD, director of education and research at the Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research (FCER)"</s> Here I discovered that the citation was to a . The text of the citation says "''Dynamic Chiropractic'' Aug. 2006", but the issue, the only issue published in August, does not mention Rosner. For now I the quote which had the side effect of removing the peacock phrase.
**<s>"Joseph Janse, DC, ND,"</s> ()
**<s>"Judge Susan Getzendanner, who presided over the Wilk case, opined"</s> (; this fix also addresses some citation and temporal problems)
**<s>"In 1975, the National Institutes of Health brought chiropractors, osteopaths, medical doctors and Ph.D. scientists together"</s> ()
**The following issues were by citing DeBoer's paper and quoting it directly rather than including all that POV commentary about it. The same fix addresses the "rallying cry" problems noted below.
***<s>"Joseph Keating dates"</s>
***<s>"Kenneth F. DeBoer, then an instructor in basic science at Palmer College in Iowa, revealed"</s>
***<s>"DeBoer's opinion piece demonstrated"</s>
**<s>"Chiropractic researchers Robert Mootz and Reed Phillips suggest that"</s> ()
**"the Ontario Ministry of Health and conducted by three health economists led by Professor Pran Manga"
**"by Steve Wolk"
**"by Cherkin ''et al.''"
**"The British Medical Association notes that"
::Most of these were placed during a phase of POV wars that required that we attribute statements to particular POV sources. Agree that if we can agree to a NPOV statement without them, I would be much more satisfied. -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 03:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
:::The attribution requirement is satisfied by proper citations; there is rarely a need to mention the sources directly in the text, and in the above-mentioned cases the need isn't there. Mentioning the sources and their qualifications in the main text tends to puff up what they say; the puffery isn't needed and when done as often as it's done in ] it constitutes POV. Mentioning the sources in footnotes is fine and is expected. ] (]) 06:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

* ] describes the feud between conventional medicine and chiropractors in a heavily biased way. For example, chiropractors are described by a lengthy quote as having "progressive minds" whereas conventional doctors are said to "have failed to realize exactly what is meant by disease processes". Both sides have attacked and have victories and losses, but the current discussion focuses almost exclusively on attacks by the medical profession, on chiropractic victories, and on areas where chiropractic is said to be superior to conventional medicine. The dispute should be covered neutrally. There is no need for a separate section ] with a lot of detail, for example, unless there is also similar detail devoted to the other side.
::Have to look at this closer, but we cannot rewrite history. -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 03:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Agreed; the summary of the dispute should be both neutral and accurate. ] (]) 06:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

* <s>] contains language like "empower faculty", "demonstrated the faculty's authority to challenge the status quo, to publicly address relevant, albeit sensitive, issues related to research, training and skepticism at chiropractic colleges, and to produce "cultural change" within the chiropractic schools so as to increase research and professional standards", and "It was a rallying call for chiropractic scientists and scholars." that clearly advocates a viewpoint favorable to the movement toward science. This wording should be reworded or removed.</s> ( by removing the POV language and by citing DeBoer directly)
::These are words used by V and RS's. Though we could add sentences from WCA suggesting that "science will never be able to capture the essence of subluxation."
:::Whatever it takes to give a reasonable-neutral summary of that part of history. The current summary is clearly biased toward one side. ] (]) 06:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
* <s>There is no need to mention twice that JMPT is included in ''Index Medicus'', particularly since ''Index Medicus'' is no longer published.</s>
::Once is enough. -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 03:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
:::OK, . ] (]) 20:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

* The sections ], ], ], and ] are merely a laundry list of endorsements of chiropractic. These sections should be removed, with their useful content moved to appropriate sections, as citations.
::Merge them. -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 03:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
* <s>] should be removed. It contains pointers to a whole bunch of anti-chiropractic web sites with approving words surrounding the citations. It also contains many pointers to pro-chiropractic web sites, without comment. This is POV. Besides, none of the external references meet the criteria set forth in ]. Let's just remove them all: ].</s> ()
::This is a POV issue. -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 03:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
::: Yes, it's a POV issue. Does the proposed fix (of removing the section) sound reasonable? At first glance that might seem drastic, but many high-quality articles (such as ] and ]) have no ''External links'' sections at all. ] (]) 20:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
::::I am not married to anything is this article as long as we handle all the issues NPOV. ---- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 15:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::OK, thanks, I took the easy way out by the section with a single pointer to the Open Directory linkfarm. ] (]) 22:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
* The lead should reflect the body of the article. The lead currently lacks summaries for some entire sections, including Safety, Scientific inquiries, Vaccination. The overall effect is to minimize the controversial parts of the body.
::Finish the body, then look back at the lead. -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 03:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
::: That order sounds reasonable, yes. ] (]) 06:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
* The lead also has a POV phrase that needs rewording: "Today, the progressive view".
::See above. -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 03:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
] (]) 06:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

===Comments on assessment===
I disagree with much of this assesssment. . . For instance, the Workman's Comp studies were landmark studies and appropriately mentioned. . . hardly mere laundry lists. And "Many phrases are inserted to strengthen the argument for chiropractic by giving the qualifications of sources when they are favorable to chiropractic". . . that seems to be an opinion share by those who would prefer this to be an article which presents arguments against chiropractic. Vaccinations should not have its own section in this article. . . it is a minor point which the opposition tries to play up to be some kind of big deal.] (]) 00:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
::I would have to agree here, and say the same about the Manga report. It was a landmark study and derserves to be mentioned. ] (]) 02:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::To "mainstream medicine" folks, the controversy about vaccination among chiropractors ''is'' a big deal. It's notable when a significant percentage of group of health professionals recommend against vaccines, or vociferously oppose them, as many do.CynRN] (]) 04:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::FWIW, a chiropractor in Ontario (and I believe the rest of Canada) cannot even comment on vaccines, as they are outside the scope of practice of chiropractic. ] (]) 05:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I doubt whether it's true of the rest of Canada. See, for example, Injeyan ''et al.'' 2006 (PMID 17045098), which asked Alberta chiropractors about their ability to give immunization advice to their patients. And even if it's supposed to be true in Ontario in principle, it's not true in practice; one can easily find websites of chiropractors in Ontario containing advice about vaccination. Here's one example: . ] (]) 06:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

::::::Here's another example from 2004, anti-vax Ted Koren was invited to speak at CMCC, and an outbreak of pertussis was perhaps linked to a chiropractor's advice, http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/vaccines/pg_two.html CynRN] (]) 20:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::::That speech and that outbreak predated the rule change that prevented Ontario chiropractors from discussing vaccination. The examples given above were more recent. ] (]) 22:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::::The link above (painfree) was not giving advice about vaccination, it was entirely from an educational perspective. ] (]) 06:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::The is anti-vaccination propaganda with pictures of skeletons all over it. It's sort of like handing out a pamphlet saying "All doctors are quacks!" with pictures of skulls and crossbones on it, and then afterwards saying "Oh, no, I wasn't giving you advice about medicine, it was entirely from an educational perspective." Perhaps that sort of behavior is technically legal under Ontario's guidelines, but from a practical point of view it means that chiropractors in Ontario can and do advise their patients not to vaccinate. ] (]) 07:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::Hehe, the skeletons are part of the background. It's even on the page. To DCs skeletons are good things ;-) This illustrates the issue about the different types of vaccines (flu vs polio, etc.) There are medical groups opposed to flu vaccine. We need to be careful here. -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 15:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::I guess I overreacted to the skeletons. Still, the text of the page is plenty antivax. Which medical groups are opposed to the flu vaccine? ] (]) 23:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::Perhaps the better question is, what is the efficacy of the flu vaccine? A quick look would suggest that it's not as clear cut as implied by some: http://vaccineinfo.net/immunization/vaccine/influenza/flu_vaccine_facts.shtml.
:::::::::::::I dunno, that's just a random antivax web site. One can easily find web sites opposing any form of treatment, including chiropractic treatment. Is there a reliable source indicating that flu vaccine is not efficacious? Something like Tosh ''et al.'' 2008 (PMID 18174020) or Jefferson ''et al.'' 2007 (PMID 17443504)?
::::::::::::::I would suggest that it's not necessarily an "anti-vax" site as suggested, and it does cite sources within the body if was read. Nonetheless, it raises interesting points (such as efficacy being related to age and to a particular strain)and does present the other side of the argument. With respect to purported anti-vax statements on websites, this is against the standard of practice in most Canadian provinces and the CCO has fined members up to 25K for those shenanigans. Nonetheless, we should not pick one example and make attributions, for I can go to MD websites and show them endorsing questionable methods such as homeopathy. We need to be careful with giving fringe POVs too much weight here which seems to be an increasing concern. ] (]) 01:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::The site did look very questionable to me, refs or not. The flu shot is not overwhelmingly effective,as any medical person would admit, but probably worthwhile:"Two randomized controlled trials (in long term care facilities) have evaluated the impact of influenza vaccination of HCP on the outcomes of residents in nursing homes. In one study, staff vaccination was associated with a 43% decrease in incidence of (flu)... In another study crude mortality rates were 42% lower among residents in facilities with higher staff vaccination coverage than those in control facilities. Randomized trials assessing the impact of staff vaccination on patient outcomes in acute care facilities have not been conducted, but low staff vaccination coverage has been correlated with influenza outbreaks in hospitals" <ref>http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5502a1.htm</ref>CynRN] (]) 02:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::::About your other point, EBDCM, it is notable that a significant % of DCs are anti-vax, especially when some want to be integrated with mainstream. I am glad that another 'significant percent' of chiropractors are pro-vax....but it is an important controversy in the profession.CynRN] (]) 02:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::Cyn, I agree it's notable, it's just a weight issue. When does 20% constitute a significant %? Remember, that chiropractic is really a two (or 4 depending who you ask) headed monster. No "mainstream" DC is opposed to vax, the lit says it's mostly worthwhile. I'm pro-vax but cannot comment on it professionally due to it's outside my scope of expertise. I just don't want to the many level headed DCs who are either pro or neutral have the "guilt by association" fallacy applied to them. We need to be balanced on this issue. The trend suggests that the anti-vax wing is shrinking from generation to generation and this is important to note, IMO. ] (]) 02:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::It's more than just 20%. Busse ''et al.'' 2005 (PMID 15965414) reported surveys of Canadian chiropractors with 40% supporting and 31% unsure and 29% opposed. These were recent (year-2000) graduates of CMCC. The level of opposition reported in the U.S. is even higher; see Campbell ''et al.'' 2000 (PMID 10742364). This high level of opposition to an enormously successful public-health strategy remains a significant problem. ] (]) 02:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::Sorry about the above..wrong dates. Some still have or had anti-vax material on websites, see April 2005<ref>http://www.painfree.ca/newsletter.htm</ref> Have any practitioners been fined for going against the prohibition?CynRN] (]) 07:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

::: The proposal is not to remove the discussion of Workman's Comp studies and Manga report. If they are historically important reports, they should be mentioned. However, they do not each deserve an entire section of their own. That's way overkill. And it raises a POV issue: why do old pro-chiropractic studies get entire sections of their own, whereas old anti-chiropractic studies get no mention at all? The Manga report is 10 years old (and the citation to it is now a dangling link! what's up with that?). The Workman's comp studies are nearly as dated. These are historical references, and as history they are not nearly as important or interesting as dozens of other points about the history of chiropractic. The AMA and BMA sections are also weird; they look like testimonials trotted out at the end of an ]. If it's important that conventional medicine recognized chiropractic around 1990, the article should just say that and give a citation; there's no need to copy long and boring quotes about it. ] (]) 06:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
::::Which old anti-chiropractic studies are you referring to? The Manga report and WOrkmen's comp studies could go in the history section, AFAIC, because they are historically important. ] (]) 05:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
::::: I wasn't referring to any old anti-chiropractic studies in particular. The point is that there are some, from reliable sources, and it's NPOV to ignore them while giving entire sections to the pro-chiropractic studies. Please see ] below on historical coverage of the Manga report. ] (]) 05:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I see that everyone has put a lot of work into the safety section and with relatively good results over the original version. I note that it took all of you to combine your intellects and POVs t come to something that is reasonable and makes sense. EBDCM, keep your nose clean and collaborate with civility. You are important to this process. ;-) -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 03:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

:::I would like to note that I also have a few POV issues (or perhaps weight) that should be rectified: the safety section and the very little it dedicates to the Neck Pain Task Force findings (in contrast to Ernst) and the vaccination section. Both are too big and should be shortened. Also, the safety section that is in current place seems not to differentiate between chiropractic and SMT, a frequent problem in conventional medical literature. ] (]) 01:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

::::*The Task Force source says only this about chiropractic safety:
::::::"There was an association between chiropractic services and subsequent vertebrobasilar artery stroke in persons under 45 years of age, but a similar association was also observed among patients receiving general practitioner services. This is likely explained by patients with vertebrobasilar artery dissection-related neck pain or headache seeking care before having their stroke."
:::::] summarizes it this way:
::::::"] is ] with chiropractic services in persons under 45 years of age, but it is similarly associated with general practitioner services, suggesting that these associations are likely explained by preexisting conditions."
:::::How does this omit anything that the Task Force source said?
::::*] is now half as long as it was when the POV issue was originally raised, so the article is much significantly now in that area, if by "better" one means "spends less time talking about safety".
::::*Specific suggestions for shortening the wording are welcome. Brevity is a good thing.
::::] (]) 01:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::Well, for example, why should we care about the Task Force, or Ernst, for that matter? What makes THEIR research notable and worthy of inclusion? Context should be provided. For example, the Task Force '''included a consensus of the top experts in the world whose findings were collated using a best-evidence synthesis, which addresses risk, prevention, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment risks and benefits'''. Can you say the same about Ernst? Why should they be given the same weight if not? Furthermore,with respect to the association of VBA stroke and cervical manipulation the study concluded 1)Vertebrobasilar artery stroke is a rare event in the population. 2)There is an association between vertebrobasilar artery stroke and chiropractic visits in those under 45 years of age. 3) There is also an association between vertebrobasilar artery stroke and use of primary care physician visits in all age groups. 4)'''no evidence of excess risk of VBA stroke associated chiropractic care.''' 5) The increased risks of vertebrobasilar artery stroke associated with chiropractic and physician visits is likely explained by patients with vertebrobasilar dissection-related neck pain and headache consulting both chiropractors and primary care physicians before their VBA stroke." Do you not think that the bolded text is a pretty big omission? If not, why? Isn't the bolded text the "bottom line"? The major conclusions/findings should be presented in full, not just a quick one liner. ] (]) 02:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

::::::* The task force's report covers many issues; Ernst focuses on just safety, which is the issue at hand. The task force's broad expertise is of value, but focusing on the issue is also of value.
::::::* Ernst is not the only researcher raising these issues. This is not a one-guy-versus-the-consensus situation.
::::::* The results ] reports from the Task Force do not disagree with the results it reports from Ernst. This is not a battle between two sources only one of which can be right.
::::::* The cited source for the Task Force, which is the executive summary, omitted the bolded text, indicating that they did not consider that text to be part of the bottom line.
::::::] (]) 03:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::::::Then we shall use Cassidy et al. if you feel the Task Force is not appropriate. Either way, Ernst is undue weight now whereas the findings of the report should be stated in their full context. Again, you have not addressed my concern which is a severe underplaying of the research done by the multi-disciplinary panel of researchers, not merely an anti-chiro MD in Ernst. We should restore the full findings re: stroke issue. I'm all for brevity as well, but just like Doctorisin is mentioned; the safety section seems have the appeal to fear fallacy. ] (]) 18:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

===Science section needs a rewrite===

:Agree. Also the "science" section needs a complete rewrite. The bulk of scientific reports in Cochrane and elsewhere show chiro has no effect on a range of conditions. The article needs to reflect this. The philosophy of science lecture is superfluous. ] (]) 12:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a suggestion for improving ]. Looking at ], its main article, it appears that the main scientific topics are (1) safety, (2), effectiveness, (3) risk-benefit and/or cost-benefit, (4) philosophical issues, and (5) history (that is, history of the interaction between science and chiropractic). I suggest the following disposition of this material:

* Expand ] into a new section ''Safety, effectiveness, and cost-benefit'' that includes topics 1 through 3 as subsections.
**The safety subsection could start with the text in ].
**The effectiveness subsection could be written from the sources in ].
**The risk-benefit / cost-effectivness subsection could be written from the sources in ].
* Move philosophical discussion (topic 4) into ]. Some discussion of the philosophy of straight chiropractic versus the philosophy of science is appropriate there; perhaps the existing discussion is enough, or perhaps it can be improved.
* Move historical discussion (topic 5) into ].

Once this is done, there will be no need for a "Scientific inquiries" section, and no need to rewrite it; though there will be a need to rewrite the moved material. ] (]) 16:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
::::Very ambitious! Your plan sounds logical. Are you going to tackle it yourself, or do you want to divvy it up?CynRN] (]) 18:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
::::: Help would be very much appreciated. The first subtask (safety) is done I hope. Would you like to volunteer for one or more of the remaining tasks? I think subtask 3 (cost-benefit) will be hardest, as ] is still incomplete; a more-extensive search needs to be done. Subtask 2 (effectiveness) involves reading the sources in ] and distilling them down to something short and sweet; this is easier but is still a nontrivial task that requires access to sources. The remaining tasks are the easiest, I hope, since no access to sources is required. ] (]) 19:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The safety section does not need to be expanded. . . to the contrary, it should be much shorter. Why? Because there is no real big safety issue with chiropractic. . . It is actually remarkably safe. . . I do not even think "safety" warrants its own section. Again, the safety issue is only notable because chiro-opponents play up the infinitessimal risks. Giving this much room to their minority-opinion agenda is a violation of NPOV.] (]) 01:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

: There must be some confusion here. The idea is to shrink the safety section, not grow it. The plan is to replace the current ] (505 words, by my count) with ] (250 words). That's a more-than-50% reduction. ] (]) 06:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

More and more it seems like this article would be turning into a condemnation of chiropractic rather than a neutral discussion of it if we were to follow many of the suggestions above.] (]) 01:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

: Which suggestions are those? Please provide details. ] (]) 06:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

:Doctorisin, I too share your sentiments and have raised this issue as well. Regarding science rewrite I too agree a rewrite is in order and we should use the CCGPP sources as it provides the most comprehensive, evidence based review of scientific literature as it pertains to chiropractic clinical practice on UE, spinal, LE and non-NMS conditions.

http://www.ccgpp.org/lowbackliterature.pdf
http://www.ccgpp.org/upperextremity.pdf
http://www.ccgpp.org/2.pdf
http://www.ccgpp.org/softtissue.pdf

If someone can find a more comprehensive source and a review of chiropractic literature they should present it, otherwise these documents should suffice as the work has already been done for us. ] (]) 00:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

:::The first source (lowbackliterature.pdf) is already listed in ]. The 3rd source (2.pdf) is already listed in ]. The other two sources are still in draft form, and shouldn't be cited in Misplaced Pages until their final versions are available. ] contains many other high-quality reviews of the effectivness of chiropractic. ] (]) 02:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::They're still V and RS and should be included. It's the most comprehensive review available and gives the complete picture, not merely a medical one like the sources from exclusively mainstream med. journals. It meets inclusion criteria and will suffice until the final draft comes in. ] (]) 02:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::They are not for attribution, while in draft status. One of them explicitly says this; the other is in the same category. That review is intended only to express the opinion of CCGPP; it is not the complete picture. ] (]) 04:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::::The literature review has been done and we can grab the studies and appropriate conclusions. The review is a lit synthesis and provides us with all the necessary sources and references to make adequate conclusions. Otherwise we are left with mainstream med speaking on behalf of chiropractic and that is not appropriate given the fact we have an evidence-based lit review that is more pertinent to the topic at hand. ] (]) 18:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

::Cochrane. Bandolier. I did a lot of work on the science section before the 'defend chiro at all costs lobby' bulldozed along. The article needs to list up front the diseases chiros treat then list the evidence for whether chiro works for these diseases or not. It's that simple. Chiros claim efficacy for all sorts of things. You name it they treat it: asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, infantile colic, urinary incontinence, dysmenorrhoea , breast cancer (chrissakes). The reader needs to know this and know what the science says. ] (]) 00:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

::::] lists four Cochrane sources, including the dysmenorrhea citation you mention. The Cochrane sources are quite reliable and their results are worth referring to. Are there other good sources aside from those already listed in ]? ] (])

:::Thanks anonymous, but those aren't articles per say. DCs treat between 85-95% neuromusculoskeletal conditions, and the article will reflect this otherwise it's an undue weight issue. Regarding your statement that DCs claim to treat various conditions, do you have any evidence of this or is this hearsay? Hawk et al. provides a comprehensive review of all non NMS conditions which will suffice.

::::There is plenty of evidence that chiropractors claim benefits for asthma etc. See, for example, Pollentier & Langworthy 2007 ({{doi|10.1016/j.clch.2007.02.001}}), which reported that more than half of the surveyed chiropractors thought chiropractic intervention benefits gastrointestinal complaints, pre-menstural syndrome, infantile colic, middle ear infection, and asthma; and that significant minorities thought it benefited osteoporosis, obesity, hypertension, and infertility. ] (]) 02:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

::::::Hawk et al. adequately covers this topic. Regardless, 85-95% of DCs treat NMS complaints. The evidence is inconclusive; not enough to suggest it is effective, not enough evidence to suggest it is not. After all, there are many case studies and over 100 years of claims that spinal manipulation could help alleviate symptoms not related to strictly NMS. Also, see my comment below regarding the HOW and WHY of non-NMS care. A lot of eat is to provide symptomatic relief. We need to be careful here with weight issues again. History is already riddled with vert sub stuff as though it was the only thing in chiropractic history (undue weight). ] (]) 18:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

:::Also, perhaps you are confused regarding HOW and WHY DCs treat non-NMS conditions. From the OCA: '''Chiropractic care may also be used to provide symptomatic relief for patients with chronic conditions. According to patient surveys, by treating the neuromusculoskeletal elements of such disorders''', chiropractic treatment has been shown to improve the general well-being of the patient. This falls in line with the philosophy of chiropractic in treating in a holistic manner, which this is an example of. ] (]) 01:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

=== Manga report notes ===

::::I too, think the Manga report and worker's comp reports should be merged with the other cost-effectiveness studies. I would like to see a full text copy of the Manga report. I have read that the conclusions are not supported by the research. For instance, manipulation was studied, not chiropractic manipulation, and that most of the studies reviewed were not chiropractic studies, but some other type of practitioner. If this is true, I don't understand why the Manga is such a big deal? Try as I might, I could not find a full text, just the summary.CynRN] (]) 04:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I could not find a copy of the original Manga report online. You may be able to get a copy by writing directly. It should be noted that the report was controversial when it came out; see, for example:
*{{cite journal |journal=CMAJ |date=1994 |volume=150 |issue=11 |pages=1878–81 |title= Orthopedists have bone to pick with economist over report on chiropractic |author= Lowry F |pmid=7802764 |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?pubmedid=7802764}}
*{{cite journal |journal=CMAJ |date=1994 |volume=151 |issue=8 |pages=1107–8 |title= Report on chiropractic |author= Manga P, Angus D |pmid=7922936 |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?pubmedid=7922936}}
*{{cite journal |journal=CMAJ |date=1994 |volume=151 |issue=8 |pages=1108 |title= Report on chiropractic |author= Chapman-Smith DA |pmid=7802806 |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?pubmedid=7802806}}
*{{cite journal |journal=CMAJ |date=1994 |volume=151 |issue=8 |pages=1110 |title= Report on chiropractic |author= Hoaken PC |pmid=7922937 |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?pubmedid=7922937}}
*{{cite journal |journal=CMAJ |date=1994 |volume=151 |issue=9 |pages=1247–9 |title= Is the chiropractic management of low-back pain the solution? What can physicians learn from the Manga report? |author= Tardif GS |pmid=7954171 |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?pubmedid=7954171}}
*{{cite journal |journal=CMAJ |date=1994 |volume=151 |issue=9 |pages=1250–1 |title= Defending the Manga report on the chiropractic management of low-back pain |author= Manga P |pmid=7954172 |url=http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?pubmedid=7954172}}
] does not cover this controversy; it gives only Manga's side. At this point the Manga report is a historical curiosity (we have later and better studies in ]). If the report is important for historical reasons, it could be briefly mentioned in ], along with a brief summary of the controversy it engendered, and perhaps (to avoid bias) similar treatment of a vintage anti-chiropractic study. We can use them as examples of the historical feud between chiropractic and conventional medicine. ] (]) 05:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::Thanks for the links. Manga is still on a many chiropractor's websites, on casual perusal, to prove cost-effectiveness. It would be interesting to include some of the criticisms.CynRN] (]) 17:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::I just got a email reply from Professor Manga himself! His full report is available in book form (5 copies left) postage included. He says it is not online. I think I'll pass, I have too many books in the house.:-) His email is above for those who want it.(Nice guy, I didn't think he'd take the time!)CynRN] (]) 02:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::I forgot to say, the report is $20, postage included.CynRN] (]) 03:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

== Revision to "Practice styles" ==

Here is a modified version of ] that attempts to address issues described in ] above, along with improving some wording. One change I'd like to make is to shorten the section header, as per the usual Misplaced Pages dictum that section headers should be short. ] (]) 20:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

:This revision uses the following citations which are already present in other sections of ]:<ref name="Chiro Beliefs">{{cite book |chapterurl=http://chiroweb.com/archives/ahcpr/chapter2.htm |chapter= Chiropractic belief systems |author= Mootz RD, Phillips RB |date=1997 |title= Chiropractic in the United States: Training, Practice, and Research |pages=9–16 |editor= Cherkin DC, Mootz RD (eds.) |accessdate=2008-02-14 |version= AHCPR Pub No. 98-N002 |location= Rockville, MD |publisher= ] |oclc=39856366}}</ref><ref name="ccestandards">{{cite web |url=http://cce-usa.org/uploads/File/2007%20January%20STANDARDS.pdf |format=PDF |title= Standards for Doctor of Chiropractic programs and requirements for institutional status |author= ] |date=2007 |accessdate=2008-02-14}}</ref>

(start of proposed revision to ])
----
=== Practice styles ===

Significant differences amongst the practice styles, claims and beliefs between various chiropractors.<ref name="Healey">James W. Healey, DC (1990) ''Dynamic Chiropractic'', October 10, 1990, Volume 08, Issue 21</ref> Those differences are reflected in the varied viewpoints of multiple national practice associations.<ref></ref>

==== Straight ====

''Straight'' chiropractors are the oldest movement. They adhere to the philosophical principles set forth by D. D. and B. J. Palmer, and retain ] definitions and ] qualities. Straight chiropractors believe that vertebral subluxation leads to interference with an ] within the human nervous system and is a primary underlying risk factor for almost any disease. Straights view the medical diagnosis of patient complaints (which they consider to be the "secondary effects" of subluxations) to be unnecessary for treatment. Thus, straight chiropractors are concerned primarily with the detection and correction of vertebral subluxation via adjustment and do not "mix" other types of therapies. Their philosophy and explanations are metaphysical in nature and prefer to use traditional chiropractic lexicon (i.e. perform spinal analysis, detect subluxation, correct with adjustment, etc.). They prefer to remain separate and distinct from mainstream health care.

==== Mixer====

''Mixer'' chiropractors are an early offshoot of the straight movement. This branch "mixes" diagnostic and treatment approaches from naturopathic, osteopathic, medical, and chiropractic viewpoints. Unlike straight chiropractors, mixer chiropractors incorporate mainstream medical diagnostics and employ myriad treatments including joint and soft tissue manipulation, electromodalities, ], exercise-rehabilitation and other complementary and alternative approaches such as acupuncture.<ref name=Kaptchuk-Eisenberg>{{cite journal |journal= Arch Intern Med |date=1998 |volume=158 |issue=20 |pages=2215–24 |title= Chiropractic: origins, controversies, and contributions |author= Kaptchuk TJ, Eisenberg DM |pmid=9818801 |url=http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/158/20/2215}}</ref> They tend to focus more on the neuromusculoskeletal system but also treat non-neuromusculoskeletal conditions as well. Mixers tend to use more mainstream scientific methods and descriptions as opposed to metaphysical ones.

{| class="wikitable" align="right"
|+ Range of belief perspectives in chiropractic<ref name="Chiro Beliefs"/>
! perspective attribute
! colspan=2 | potential belief endpoints
|-
| align=right | scope of practice:
| align=right | narrow ("straight") ←||→ broad ("mixer")
|-
| align=right | diagnostic approach:
| align=right | intuitive ←||→ analytical
|-
| align=right | philosophic orientation:
| align=right | vitalistic ←||→ materialistic
|-
| align=right | scientific orientation:
| align=right | descriptive ←||→ experimental
|-
| align=right | process orientation:
| align=right | implicit ←||→ explicit
|-
| align=right | practice attitude:
| align=right | doctor/model-centered ←||→ patient/situation-centered
|-
| align=right | professional integration:
| align=right | separate and distinct ←||→ integrated into mainstream
|}

==== Scope of practice ====

It is generally not within the scope of practice of chiropractors to write ]s. A notable exception is the state of Oregon, which allows chiropractors with minor additional qualification to prescribe over-the-counter drugs.{{Fact|date=March 2008}} Traditionally, chiropractors have opposed prescription drugs, but in a 2003 survey of North American chiropractors a narrow majority supported prescription rights for over-the-counter medicines.<ref>{{cite book |author= McDonald WP |date=2003 |title= How Chiropractors Think and Practice: The Survey of North American Chiropractors |location= Ada, OH |publisher= Institute for Social Research, Ohio Northern University |isbn=0972805559}}</ref> Depending on the country or state in which a chiropractic school is located, some chiropractors may obtain additional training to perform minor surgery or proctology.<ref></ref> When indicated, the doctor of chiropractic consults with, co-manages with, or refers to other health care providers.<ref name="ccestandards"/>

----
(end of proposed revision to ].

=== Comments on proposed revision to "Practice styles" ===
(Please put comments here.) ] (]) 20:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I made to ] so that its text more-closely reflected the cited sources. ] (]) 06:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

: No further comment so I that change. ] (]) 07:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

::I would ask that you please allow more time for the users to properly reply. There's no rush to move these to the main article, and there is a significant omission on what all DCs agree on in practice styles (Coppertwigs) edit. Despite differences, there are basic agreements and unity on the issues you've left out. ] (]) 02:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

::: Sorry, I'm a bit lost: I don't know what is meant by Coppertwigs edit; the by Coppertwig didn't affect the contents of the section in question (just some minor formatting thing). How much time is needed to review a draft section? ] (]) 05:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

::::::The edit that listed the common themes amongst all practice styles. ] (]) 18:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

== Massive edits against consensus ==
II reverted Quackguru's massive controversial edits against consensus. . . there are two main groups of chiropractors. . . the other two are off-shoots. . . his version includes poor references as well.] (]) 08:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

:Hello. I am interested in getting to the root of the matter here. It seems to me that the main difference between your and Quackguru's edits is the statement about the minority still using dubious methods. From what I understand of science, it is not just about devices and techniques, but theory also. So what we really need to discuss is about chiropractic theory (which is always the basis) and the minority. I don't know minorities from majorities myself, but it would be constructive to get some sort of consensus on what science considers about chiropractic theory. Please don't refer me back to past discussions as this point is definitely something that needs clarification now. ] (]) 08:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

:: Part of the discussion is also about changes to the lead. Please see ] above for details. That section also talks about sources for the claims about objective straights and reform chiropractors; so far the evidence is fairly weak that these groups still exist as viable groups, which suggest sthat discussion of these groups should be moved to ], and be made briefer. ] (]) 19:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

:::I agree with Eubulides assessment here. No matter how we try to accomodate QuackGurus wording, it just is not supportable by the sources. ---- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 05:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

==Prevent subsequent deterioration==
I was just rereading the article and came across:"The objective is early identification of mechanical dysfunctions to prevent subsequent deterioration which would result in permanent pathological changes." in the last paragraph of the philosophy section. Is there any evidence that "subsequent deterioration" can be affected by chiropractic treatment? The reference only gives me the name of the textbook. Is there an accessable ref. for this assertion?CynRN] (]) 01:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
: That textbook is not online and is hard to find nowadays. It's better to use a citation that's online. I made to cite Vear (readable on Google Books) instead of Strang. This change also rewords for brevity and makes the additional point that prophylaxis is intended to delay (as well as prevent) permanent damage. ] (]) 04:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::Thanks, I'll see if I can look it up in Vear.CynRN] (]) 16:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

==Safety again==
I started just doing some minor copyediting, but when I got to the Safety section I noticed we had said some things two times and then the order seemed backwards. I ended up making a lot of changes, but I don't think it has changed the meaning, other than being more succinct. I'll put the new one here along with Safety 3. Hopefully it still works for everybody.


<blockquote>
Chiropractic care in general, and chiropractic manipulation in particular, are safe when employed skilfully and appropriately. As with all treatments, ]s can arise and there are known contraindications and risks.<ref name=WHO-guidelines/>

</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Spinal manipulation is statistically associated with minor side effects. These include frequent, mild and temporary new or worsening pain in the head, neck, arm or upper back; and stiffness of the neck, shoulder or arm.<ref name=Thiel>{{cite journal |journal=Spine |date=2007 |volume=32 |issue=21 |pages=2375–8 |title= Safety of chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine: a prospective national survey |author= Thiel HW, Bolton JE, Docherty S, Portlock JC |pmid=17906581}}</ref> They have been estimated to occur in 34% to 55% of patients, with 80% of them disappearing within 24 hours.<ref name=CCA-CFCREAB-CPG/> Rarely, upper cervical (neck) manipulation can also result in complications that can lead to permanent disability or death; these can occur in adults<ref name=Ernst-adverse>{{cite journal |journal= J R Soc Med |date=2007 |volume=100 |issue=7 |pages=330–8 |title= Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review |author= Ernst E |pmid=17606755 |url=http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/full/100/7/330}}</ref> and children.<ref name=Vohra>{{cite journal |journal=Pediatrics |date=2007 |volume=119 |issue=1 |pages=e275–83 |title= Adverse events associated with pediatric spinal manipulation: a systematic review |author= Vohra S, Johnston BC, Cramer K, Humphreys K |doi=10.1542/peds.2006-1392 |pmid=17178922 |url=http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/119/1/e275}}</ref> The ] of these complications is unknown, due to rarity, high levels of underreporting, and difficulty of linking manipulation to adverse effects.<ref name=Ernst-adverse/> ], the most commonly reported serious complication, is associated with chiropractic services in persons under 45 years of age, but it is similarly associated with general practitioner services, suggesting that these associations are likely explained by preexisting conditions.<ref name=BJD-ES>{{cite journal |journal=Spine |date=2008 |volume=33 |issue= 4 Suppl |pages=S5–7 |title= The Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders: executive summary |author= Haldeman S, Carroll L, Cassidy JD, Schubert J, Nygren Å |doi=10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181643f40 |pmid=18204400 |url=http://www.spinejournal.com/pt/re/spine/fulltext.00007632-200802151-00004.htm}}</ref>

</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Absolute ]s to any form of manipulation (conditions that should not be manipulated) include conditions that are known to result in unstable joints, such as ]. Relative complications mean the increased risk is acceptable under some conditions, such as ].<ref name=WHO-guidelines/> Although most contraindications apply only to manipulation of the affected region, some neurological signs such as unilateral facial
paresthesia, objective cerebellar signs, lateral medullary
signs, and ] defects are indications for emergency referral.<ref name=CCA-CFCREAB-CPG>{{cite journal |journal= J Can Chiropr Assoc |date=2005 |volume=49 |issue=3 |pages=158–209 |title= Chiropractic clinical practice guideline: evidence-based treatment of adult neck pain not due to whiplash |author= Anderson-Peacock E, Blouin JS, Bryans R ''et al.'' |url=http://www.jcca-online.org/Client/cca/jcca.nsf/objects/jcca-v49-3-158/$file/jcca-v49-3-158.pdf |format=PDF}} {{cite journal |journal= J Can Chiropr Assoc |date=2008 |volume=52 |issue=1 |pages=7–8 |title= A clinical practice guideline update from The CCA•CFCREAB-CPG |author= Anderson-Peacock E, Bryans B, Descarreaux M ''et al.'' |url=http://www.jcca-online.org/Client/cca/JCCA.nsf/objects/JCCA_March_2008_52_1/$file/jcca-v52-1-007.pdf |format=PDF}}</ref>

</blockquote>
----

<blockquote>
Chiropractic care in general, and chiropractic manipulation in particular, are safe when employed skilfully and appropriately. As with all treatments, ]s can arise and there are known contraindications and risks.<ref name=WHO-guidelines>{{cite paper |author= World Health Organization |date=2005 |title= WHO guidelines on basic training and safety in chiropractic |url=http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/traditional/Chiro-Guidelines.pdf |format=PDF |accessdate=2008-03-03}}</ref>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Absolute ]s, such as ], prohibit employing manipulation. Relative complications, such as ], mean the increased risk is acceptable under some conditions.<ref name=WHO-guidelines/> Although most contraindications apply only to manipulation of the affected region, a few emergency conditions, such as ] defects, absolutely contraindicate all chiropractic treatment.<ref name=CCA-CFCREAB-CPG>{{cite journal |journal= J Can Chiropr Assoc |date=2005 |volume=49 |issue=3 |pages=158–209 |title= Chiropractic clinical practice guideline: evidence-based treatment of adult neck pain not due to whiplash |author= Anderson-Peacock E, Blouin JS, Bryans R ''et al.'' |url=http://www.jcca-online.org/Client/cca/jcca.nsf/objects/jcca-v49-3-158/$file/jcca-v49-3-158.pdf |format=PDF}} {{cite journal |journal= J Can Chiropr Assoc |date=2008 |volume=52 |issue=1 |pages=7–8 |title= A clinical practice guideline update from The CCA•CFCREAB-CPG |author= Anderson-Peacock E, Bryans B, Descarreaux M ''et al.'' |url=http://www.jcca-online.org/Client/cca/JCCA.nsf/objects/JCCA_March_2008_52_1/$file/jcca-v52-1-007.pdf |format=PDF}}</ref>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>
Risks can reasonably be considered slight when compared to all forms of medical treatment.<ref>{{cite journal |journal= Clin Orthop Relat Res |date=2006 |volume=444 |pages=243–9 |title= History and overview of theories and methods of chiropractic: a counterpoint |author= DeVocht JW |doi=10.1097/01.blo.0000203460.89887.8d |pmid=16523145}}</ref>
Spinal manipulation is ] with frequent, mild and temporary adverse effects; they have been estimated to occur in 34% to 55% of patients, with 80% of them disappearing within 24 hours.<ref name=CCA-CFCREAB-CPG/> The most common minor side effects reported in a 2007 study of cervical spine manipulation were new or worsening pain in the head, neck, arm or upper back; and stiffness of the neck, shoulder or arm.<ref name=Thiel>{{cite journal |journal=Spine |date=2007 |volume=32 |issue=21 |pages=2375–8 |title= Safety of chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine: a prospective national survey |author= Thiel HW, Bolton JE, Docherty S, Portlock JC |pmid=17906581}}</ref>
Spinal manipulation, particularly on the upper spine, can also result in rare complications that can lead to permanent disability or death; these can occur in adults<ref name=Ernst-adverse>{{cite journal |journal= J R Soc Med |date=2007 |volume=100 |issue=7 |pages=330–8 |title= Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review |author= Ernst E |pmid=17606755 |url=http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/full/100/7/330}}</ref> and children.<ref name=Vohra>{{cite journal |journal=Pediatrics |date=2007 |volume=119 |issue=1 |pages=e275–83 |title= Adverse events associated with pediatric spinal manipulation: a systematic review |author= Vohra S, Johnston BC, Cramer K, Humphreys K |doi=10.1542/peds.2006-1392 |pmid=17178922 |url=http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/119/1/e275}}</ref> The ] of these complications is unknown, due to rarity, high levels of underreporting, and difficulty of linking manipulation to adverse effects.<ref name=Ernst-adverse/> ], the most commonly reported serious complication, is associated with chiropractic services in persons under 45 years of age, but it is similarly associated with general practitioner services, suggesting that these associations are likely explained by preexisting conditions.<ref name=BJD-ES>{{cite journal |journal=Spine |date=2008 |volume=33 |issue= 4 Suppl |pages=S5–7 |title= The Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders: executive summary |author= Haldeman S, Carroll L, Cassidy JD, Schubert J, Nygren Å |doi=10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181643f40 |pmid=18204400 |url=http://www.spinejournal.com/pt/re/spine/fulltext.00007632-200802151-00004.htm}}</ref>

</blockquote>
-- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 05:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

:I have a problem with the first sentence, though, and for the life of me I can't figure out a better way to say it:
:*Chiropractic care in general, and chiropractic manipulation in particular, are safe when employed skilfully and appropriately.
:This tends to make me feel that chiropractic manipulation is safer that chiropractic care? ---- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 06:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

::BTW, Eubulides, I think your changes were warranted. ---- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 06:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::Thanks, I a few more changes to the contraindication paragraph. It's still too abstruse (how many ordinary readers are going to know what "objective cerebellar signs" are, even with the wikilink?) but it's better than before. ] (]) 07:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::Great job rewording the Safety section. It reads much easier now and is nice and short. No easy task. I suggest making the first sentence "Chiropractic care is (considered)safe when employed skillfully and appropriately". The next paragraph goes on to talk about manipulation, so no need to say it in the first sentence. Then it's not implying that manipulation is "especially safe". CynRN] (]) 06:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks! And perfect solution to my dilemma! -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 15:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::Good suggestion, particularly since the source says "chiropractic care is safe" without the confusing addition. I the suggested change. ] (]) 06:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

:::::::I ended up making one more change to try and differentiate that spinal manipuation is only one part of chiropractic care as the source tries to point out.
:::::::*Chiropractic care in general is safe when employed skillfully and appropriately. There are known side effects, risks and contraindications for it's primary treatment modality, spinal manipulation. <ref name=WHO-guidelines/>
:::::::I also switched back the defintion of Absolute contraindications in front of RA, etc. I just think it is better to define the term first then give examples. -- <b><font color="999900">]</font></b> <font color="#009900" size="1">]</font> 16:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Thanks. I made which I hope are improvements. I didn't see why Thiel ''et al.'' 2007 needed to be cited twice in the same sentence. The contraindications wording confused me; I tried to fix the confusion while preserving the order you preferred. It bugs me a bit to call adverse effects "side effects" (not all side effects are adverse) but I guess it's common enough usage that it's OK. ] (]) 00:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

== The summary ==

A user has altered my edit to the summary. He wants to say chiros only treat muscular stuff. But the article says that Straights say subluxation is a "primary underlying risk factor for almost any disease" and mixers "treat non-neuromusculoskeletal conditions". Who is right? Me or that other user?


The section "History" could use an update if sources are available.
:Your edit to the lead put words in that was not attributed to the source. Also, given the fact that this article is under probation and was recently locked; major edits, especially to the lead need to be discussed. Also, you are mis-representing my words, I never said that DCs only treat MSK "stuff" but rather PRIMARILY treat neuromusculoskeletal disorders. 85-95% in fact. It seems that there is potentially some confusion with anonymous and his/her understanding of the topic at hand. ] (]) 01:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
::This article was under probation. Someone removed the probation tag. ] (]) 01:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


Looks like the most recent info in that section is from 10+ years ago.
The article says Straights say subluxation is "primary underlying risk factor for almost any disease"
and Mixers "treat non-neuromusculoskeletal conditions". So what's wrong with saying chiropractic treats human diseases in the summary? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:The Lead will be undergoing reconstruction and rewording after the rest of the article has been rehashed anyway, so you may as well just leave it be. I don't think it belongs in the lead per se. ] (]) 10:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC) - ] (]) 18:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


:As perennial comments routinely remind us, this article really does need a lot of work, and with enough time I'll get to it, but I do hope someone else gets to it first. I'm pretty sure "Straights" and "Mixers" is a distinction from the 1920s, for example, so far as I'm aware, you won't find modern practitioners labeled as either. There's quite a lot of techniques that aren't mentioned in the article and we have no info on the relative strength of evidence for each: the 1920-style neurocalometer appears to be pure bunk, for example, while other techniques appear to be the exact same as those used by science-based providers. Ideally, we'd have a more detailed history of the various techniques and their relative merits. ] (]) 03:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
So you are saying I'm right but leave it till later? That doesn't make sense to me. If it's right it can go in now? ] (]) <small>—Preceding ] was added at 13:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:: In the 2010s the two groups were very much alive, with the Straights being very self-conscious activists (some schools are Straight schools) and Mixers not giving it much thought. The Straights are the "real" traditional chiropractors. You can look at ] and ] for examinations of treatment methods and techniques. ] is "pure bunk". It was even banned by the province chiro association in one of the Canadian provinces. ] is another quack method used by many chiros. Most Straights still practice Palmer upper cervical , a belief that "adjusting" C1 will fix everything. HIO stands for Hole-In-One. -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 03:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:::GREAT feedback! What do you mean by "very self-conscious activists"? Do mixers not also advocate for their own profession? If I were to walk into any of the many chiro offices you see everywhere and ask if they're "straights or mixers", would they know which one they are?
:::I only could find one RS about the Activator ban in Saskatchewan which I added to the respective article , do you know how that all turned out?
:::Reading over the respective pages, it sounds like the "leg test" is total bunk but the activator itself "may be as effective as manual adjustment in treatment of back pain", just through the same mechanism as massage I presume?
:::It would be really good to add in modern descriptions of Straights vs Mixers, like the HIO thing you reference. I've never heard of that of course, but it sounds pretty important. ] (]) 04:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
:::: I used to be very into this stuff, even leading a reform chiropractor discussion group, even though I'm not a chiro. I used to remember exact names, dates, everything, and was often in contact with ], the historian for the profession. We had lots of good conversations, and he shared good stuff from the archives for my book....that I had to drop. IIRC, the ban was lifted after about a year. Activator taps the skin and bony prominences on the spine and other locations. It's so light a tapping that it can't really do anything other than psychological. It's bogus. Combined with the leg length test, it's a complete quack therapy scam system. The HIO technique idea is from ]. He was always figuring out new electrical instruments and quack methods to make more money, and he'd patent them. I don't know if it's discussed much anymore, as I haven't been in contact with that world for a long time. Activate your email. It would probably be well-known among the older generation. Since the ideas behind spinal adjustments are magical thinking (the "intention" determines the result), the same applies to only adjusting the top vertebra (C1) and believing the body will then heal all problems with just that one adjustment. It's a chiropractic ]! It works like magic! -- ] (]) (''''']''''')


== Remove opening claims that chiropractic is based in esotericism and is a pseudoscience ==
::The section practice styles section needs proper referencing (including the "primarily risk factor for any disease bit". I don't think straights are suggesting that much, the one cause one cure mentality isn't that bad. Perhaps Dematt can shed some light on that issue. Also, I don't see any reference, citation, educational curriculum or anything that suggest that "chiropractic treats human diseases". This type of editing uses the bias sample fallacy and a straw man fallacy. ] (]) 18:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


The links regarding its "esoteric" roots have nothing to do with esotericism. Also, the references that claim it is a pseudoscience are all just opinion articles. None of them have scientific evidence included. One of them even notes that while chiropractic started with unusual claims, it is now focused on physical therapy and has a scientific basis. If you want to claim it is a pseudoscience because of erroneous thinking in it's origins, then you need to make the same comments about psychology, psychiatry, and many other medical disciplines as well (which obviously are all legitimate by today's standards, as is chiropractic). ] (]) 17:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
== References ==
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->


:They're not 'just opinion articles', and all Misplaced Pages requires is that sources meet ]. They do not have to include 'scientific evidence' to your personal standard. ] (]) 17:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
{| class="navbox collapsible" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
::I'm as anti-chiropractic as they come, but saying "we did the bare minimum" is a bad faith argument. There are plenty of high-quality articles discussing chiropractic as a pseudoscience and no real excuse to not accept criticism of the article just because it happens to be right. ] (]) 16:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
|-
:::No one said "we did the bare minimum". What I did say is that Misplaced Pages has standards it follows. We're not going to switch standards and rule out references because someone sets the goalposts in some arbitrary place to get rid of results they dislike. ] (]) 17:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
! style="background-color: #f2dfce;" | References
:] is essentially equivalent to an MD, but we still characterize them as practitioners of pseudoscientific techniques. Much of the <s>profession</s> Chiropractic profession has changed to be essentially PT, but much of it has not. Globally, the field is still beset with snake oil, sorry to say. ] (]) 05:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
|-
:: I think there is some confusion there. Osteopathy is a red herring here, as this is about chiropractic. ]s are not comparable to ]s. DMs are real medical doctors, most of whom have long since rejected the pseudoscientific underpinnings of original ]. The chiropractic profession (except in England) still allows claims for non-existent ]s and "adjusting" patients for every disease imaginable, using claims that regular ]s will put the body in a better condition to self-heal. There is no evidence that adjustments make people more healthy. -- ] (]) (PING me) 05:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
|
:::Yes, I worded that very confusingly. ] (]) 05:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
{{reflist}}
::::I want to point out that the articles cited after calling chiropractic "pseudoscientific" are from SBM which is a blog. While they do good work, they have an implicit bias against chiropractic.
|}
::::The WHO recognizes the World Chiropractic Federation. It also recognizes spinal manipulation as a viable and first step for chronic lower back pain ().
<!-- If you are inserting something below here, STOP PLEASE and instead insert above "== References ==". Thanks! -->
::::I know people get on a high horse, but the body of evidence is massive compared to articles dated in 2008. Nearly 20 years have passed since the articles from Dr. Hall and you're touting it as if it's the end-all.
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
::::Medicine changes and updates. I can't and won't speak for every practitioner, but evidence points towards chiropractic being beneficial for patients. It doesn't work the same way Dr. Palmer indicated it would in 1897, but Dr. A.T. Still wasn't correct either.
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
::::If you're willing to keep your implicit bias against chiropractic, I'm only one person and cannot stop you, but being willing to accept data contrary to your beliefs is what makes Misplaced Pages a great resource. Yet, you're doing readers a disservice by using old data with outdated claims.
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
::::I'm happy to keep providing updated data. I will concede that some chiropractors still subscribe to outdated beliefs, but I am also willing to provide evidence that MDs, DOs, and other medical providers do as well.
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
::::You have a duty to maintain the up-to-date nature of the sources used. Otherwise, what's the point of science if you're going to cling to outdated ideas? ] (]) 18:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
:::::See ]. Chiropractic is woo and that's been long settled &amp; accepted knowledge. ] applies and an exceptional set of sources would be needed to source any change of position. ] (]) 18:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
::::::Lol. I tried. I'm curious who you'll cite as it being "woo." ] (]) 18:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
:::::::The article is well cited at the end of the first paragraph. ] (]) 18:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
::::::::I've read the sources. Pseudoscience is a pejorative term. You may not like chiropractic, but slamming something as pseudoscience leaves no room for discussion because you will dismiss evidence out of hand.
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
::::::::If I gave you a dozen meta-analyses for chiropractic adjustments, would that change your mind? A hundred?
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
::::::::If I gave you studies on patient outcomes? On patient satisfaction?
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
::::::::What is the limit at which something becomes "science?"
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
::::::::Psychiatry is still questionable on what causes depression. Yet it is a medical profession. Podiatry began as chiropody but is now a medical profession.
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
::::::::This Wiki article cites DD Palmer as a problematic character. Look back at the origins of Osteopathic medicine. At the origins of modern medicine. None of it is good.
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
::::::::Yet, you still fault them for the sins of those who came before.
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
::::::::AT Still never went to medical school. Yet DOs are medical doctors.
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
::::::::So, please, define for me what you consider pseudoscience.
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
::::::::I have no problem playing this game and changing the edits however much I can. I think it's a disservice to those who seek chiropractic care into scaring them away when modern evidence points to the benefits and validity. ] (]) 00:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
<!-- **** PLEASE KEEP THIS SECTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURRENT DISCUSSION PAGE **** -->
:::::::::Misplaced Pages follows reliable source. If they say something's pseudoscience that is reflected here. End of story. ] (]) 06:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::All pseudosciences of a certain minimum age have studies confirming them, but that is not enough for ], for ] or for Misplaced Pages to say they are not pseudoscience, since primary studies are only the first step of the science process.
:::::::::{{tq|On patient satisfaction}} LOL, that's a good one. If patients were never satisfied, a medical pseudoscience would not even get started.
:::::::::{{tq|What is the limit at which something becomes "science?"}} See ]. --] (]) 06:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I hear your concern, Bonewizard, and I _do_ wish we could strike a slightly better middle-ground. Anyone who ever leaned back in a chair and felt the pleasant sensation of 'crack your bones' knows that there's ''something'' to Chiropractic, however minimal. But unfortunately, Chiropractors as a field are absolutely known for peddling pseudoscience bordering on snakeoil. For the time being, we do have to warn readers that their field is pseudoscientific.
:::::::::I would, however, love to see, say, comparison between things like chiropractic and, say, opioids, which consensus now accepts were often overprescribed to the point of malfeasanced -- IF we could find GOOD mainstream RSes, not cherry picked research. ] (]) 08:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::The physical manipulation part of chiropractic (sort of maybe) 'works' for pain, but then that's just ]. Chiropractic, to be distinctively chiropractic, is the whole medical system built on the idea that the spine is the root of all health and that dextrous manipulation can cure all ills. ] (]) 08:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Absolutely. But what fraction of practicing Chiropractors still preach that whole 'joint popping can cure all ills' nonsense? Enough that we still need to warn the reader, no doubt. But I do feel for the 'modern' practitioners who are, in essence, ], helping people reset a rib or crack their back or what not, and nothing more. But we DO need to err on the side of caution, Chiropractors will still totally take money to test your blood for fictitious 'toxins'. But I do wish there were better labelling between 'I'll help pop your back' vs 'I'll help cure all your ills' types. ] (]) 08:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::Do you have any evidence to support that? From any leadership in chiropractic? They don't teach that.
:::::::::::The spine is central to the profession but no one of any consequence believes that.
:::::::::::Primary evidence is showing immunological changes but the accepted body of work knows and understands there are limits - as there is in any profession. ] (]) 13:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::It's how it's sold. A quick search quickly finds this where chiropractic is being sold to treat allergies on the basis it addresses the 'root cause' of diseases. Reliable sources apparently see things for how they are, not some idealised form confected as a front. ] (]) 13:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Does this work?
::::::::::https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/910617?form=fpf ] (]) 13:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::You were pointed to ] above, you should read it thoroughly. ] (]) 14:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Pseudoscience is descriptive. You can make a chart of fields claiming to be science and easily determine which belong in which category because we all know what the word means even if we don't like it. Just because it's used dismissively doesn't mean it's inherently a pejorative. ] (]) 16:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
:As far as I can tell {{u|Jjazz76}} was correct when they from the lead on account of not explicitly supporting "esoteric". I get that Simon seems to be hinting at it with "unconventional", but there's too much air between those wording choices. We're in an awkward position where "esoteric" is still present in the body with the same citation.
:Regardless of the language choice, I'd support restoring something brief in the opening paragraph, paired with "pseudoscientific", that nods toward the origins of the practice. I can Google like the best of them, but I'm hoping someone more familiar with the body of sources can point us toward what the good ones say (or don't say) about this. ] (] / ]) 02:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::I'm sorry I didn't also see the mention of "esoteric" in the body, because it is also unsupported by a RS, and I'm going to delete it.
::I'm not going to weight in (yet) on the pseudo-science part of the debate (it is late here), but esotericism has a pretty specific enough meaning, and I'm not seeing a strong enough connection here. If there are some good reliable sources, then that's fine, let's include it, but but the connection as it stands seems tangential at best.
::One might claim that chiropractic is pseudo-scientific and esoteric, and unconventional but I think each claim needs a reliable source to support it, and they terms are different enough in that one can't use a claim of one as proof of a claim of one of the other. ] (]) 04:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:I think it's important to mention the more comprehensive outlook on patient care that modern chiropractors have. In the UK, every chiropractor I have met and worked with, except for members of older generations, use techniques founded in physiotherapy, osteopathy and other fields of healthcare science; with many chiropractors working with osteopaths and sports therapists. Chiropractic has moved away from the idea of spine manipulation being the 'go-to' and instead tend to a patient's needs in much more versatile ways. I hate the way many people see chiropractic as only 'cracking backs' and I wish more would recognise what a chiropractor actually does. If someone would sit in for a chiropractor's average day at the clinic they would see nutritional advice, soft-tissue work, ultra-scans etc. and many other treatments you wouldn't expect. Healthcare professionals are vital for many people whom couldn't function without their help, many patients being turned away from general practitioners, their stories not being heard; drugs can't solve everything. ] (]) 00:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
::Thats all well and fine, but the costume that chiros put on is still that of a primary care provider, which they are not. There isn't controversy surrounding massusers for example because they don't claim to be doctors. ] (]) 03:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:31, 4 December 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chiropractic article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Censorship warningMisplaced Pages is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconChiropractic Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Chiropractic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chiropractic on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChiropracticWikipedia:WikiProject ChiropracticTemplate:WikiProject ChiropracticChiropractic
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
WikiProject iconSkepticism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAlternative views Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCitizendium Porting (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Citizendium Porting, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Citizendium PortingWikipedia:WikiProject Citizendium PortingTemplate:WikiProject Citizendium PortingCitizendium Porting
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
Do not feed the trollDo not feed the trolls!
This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40


This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

The section "History" could use an update

The section "History" could use an update if sources are available.

Looks like the most recent info in that section is from 10+ years ago.

- 189.122.84.88 (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

As perennial comments routinely remind us, this article really does need a lot of work, and with enough time I'll get to it, but I do hope someone else gets to it first. I'm pretty sure "Straights" and "Mixers" is a distinction from the 1920s, for example, so far as I'm aware, you won't find modern practitioners labeled as either. There's quite a lot of techniques that aren't mentioned in the article and we have no info on the relative strength of evidence for each: the 1920-style neurocalometer appears to be pure bunk, for example, while other techniques appear to be the exact same as those used by science-based providers. Ideally, we'd have a more detailed history of the various techniques and their relative merits. Feoffer (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
In the 2010s the two groups were very much alive, with the Straights being very self-conscious activists (some schools are Straight schools) and Mixers not giving it much thought. The Straights are the "real" traditional chiropractors. You can look at Chiropractic treatment techniques and Spinal adjustment for examinations of treatment methods and techniques. Activator technique is "pure bunk". It was even banned by the province chiro association in one of the Canadian provinces. Applied kinesiology is another quack method used by many chiros. Most Straights still practice Palmer upper cervical , a belief that "adjusting" C1 will fix everything. HIO stands for Hole-In-One. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
GREAT feedback! What do you mean by "very self-conscious activists"? Do mixers not also advocate for their own profession? If I were to walk into any of the many chiro offices you see everywhere and ask if they're "straights or mixers", would they know which one they are?
I only could find one RS about the Activator ban in Saskatchewan which I added to the respective article , do you know how that all turned out?
Reading over the respective pages, it sounds like the "leg test" is total bunk but the activator itself "may be as effective as manual adjustment in treatment of back pain", just through the same mechanism as massage I presume?
It would be really good to add in modern descriptions of Straights vs Mixers, like the HIO thing you reference. I've never heard of that of course, but it sounds pretty important. Feoffer (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I used to be very into this stuff, even leading a reform chiropractor discussion group, even though I'm not a chiro. I used to remember exact names, dates, everything, and was often in contact with Joseph C. Keating Jr., the historian for the profession. We had lots of good conversations, and he shared good stuff from the archives for my book....that I had to drop. IIRC, the ban was lifted after about a year. Activator taps the skin and bony prominences on the spine and other locations. It's so light a tapping that it can't really do anything other than psychological. It's bogus. Combined with the leg length test, it's a complete quack therapy scam system. The HIO technique idea is from B. J. Palmer. He was always figuring out new electrical instruments and quack methods to make more money, and he'd patent them. I don't know if it's discussed much anymore, as I haven't been in contact with that world for a long time. Activate your email. It would probably be well-known among the older generation. Since the ideas behind spinal adjustments are magical thinking (the "intention" determines the result), the same applies to only adjusting the top vertebra (C1) and believing the body will then heal all problems with just that one adjustment. It's a chiropractic hole in one! It works like magic! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me)

Remove opening claims that chiropractic is based in esotericism and is a pseudoscience

The links regarding its "esoteric" roots have nothing to do with esotericism. Also, the references that claim it is a pseudoscience are all just opinion articles. None of them have scientific evidence included. One of them even notes that while chiropractic started with unusual claims, it is now focused on physical therapy and has a scientific basis. If you want to claim it is a pseudoscience because of erroneous thinking in it's origins, then you need to make the same comments about psychology, psychiatry, and many other medical disciplines as well (which obviously are all legitimate by today's standards, as is chiropractic). 2603:8000:DC01:401:6161:C2A0:44A8:D60A (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

They're not 'just opinion articles', and all Misplaced Pages requires is that sources meet WP:RS. They do not have to include 'scientific evidence' to your personal standard. MrOllie (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm as anti-chiropractic as they come, but saying "we did the bare minimum" is a bad faith argument. There are plenty of high-quality articles discussing chiropractic as a pseudoscience and no real excuse to not accept criticism of the article just because it happens to be right. 2603:7081:1603:A300:D56:8C74:C3D7:9391 (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
No one said "we did the bare minimum". What I did say is that Misplaced Pages has standards it follows. We're not going to switch standards and rule out references because someone sets the goalposts in some arbitrary place to get rid of results they dislike. MrOllie (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine is essentially equivalent to an MD, but we still characterize them as practitioners of pseudoscientific techniques. Much of the profession Chiropractic profession has changed to be essentially PT, but much of it has not. Globally, the field is still beset with snake oil, sorry to say. Feoffer (talk) 05:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I think there is some confusion there. Osteopathy is a red herring here, as this is about chiropractic. DCs are not comparable to DMs. DMs are real medical doctors, most of whom have long since rejected the pseudoscientific underpinnings of original Osteopathy. The chiropractic profession (except in England) still allows claims for non-existent vertebral subluxations and "adjusting" patients for every disease imaginable, using claims that regular spinal adjustments will put the body in a better condition to self-heal. There is no evidence that adjustments make people more healthy. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I worded that very confusingly. Feoffer (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I want to point out that the articles cited after calling chiropractic "pseudoscientific" are from SBM which is a blog. While they do good work, they have an implicit bias against chiropractic.
The WHO recognizes the World Chiropractic Federation. It also recognizes spinal manipulation as a viable and first step for chronic lower back pain (WHO releases guidelines on chronic low back pain).
I know people get on a high horse, but the body of evidence is massive compared to articles dated in 2008. Nearly 20 years have passed since the articles from Dr. Hall and you're touting it as if it's the end-all.
Medicine changes and updates. I can't and won't speak for every practitioner, but evidence points towards chiropractic being beneficial for patients. It doesn't work the same way Dr. Palmer indicated it would in 1897, but Dr. A.T. Still wasn't correct either.
If you're willing to keep your implicit bias against chiropractic, I'm only one person and cannot stop you, but being willing to accept data contrary to your beliefs is what makes Misplaced Pages a great resource. Yet, you're doing readers a disservice by using old data with outdated claims.
I'm happy to keep providing updated data. I will concede that some chiropractors still subscribe to outdated beliefs, but I am also willing to provide evidence that MDs, DOs, and other medical providers do as well.
You have a duty to maintain the up-to-date nature of the sources used. Otherwise, what's the point of science if you're going to cling to outdated ideas? Bonewizard1 (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
See WP:SBM. Chiropractic is woo and that's been long settled & accepted knowledge. WP:ECREE applies and an exceptional set of sources would be needed to source any change of position. Bon courage (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Lol. I tried. I'm curious who you'll cite as it being "woo." 2600:1008:B10C:CC3A:814A:4C81:47D7:99D9 (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
The article is well cited at the end of the first paragraph. Bon courage (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
I've read the sources. Pseudoscience is a pejorative term. You may not like chiropractic, but slamming something as pseudoscience leaves no room for discussion because you will dismiss evidence out of hand.
If I gave you a dozen meta-analyses for chiropractic adjustments, would that change your mind? A hundred?
If I gave you studies on patient outcomes? On patient satisfaction?
What is the limit at which something becomes "science?"
Psychiatry is still questionable on what causes depression. Yet it is a medical profession. Podiatry began as chiropody but is now a medical profession.
This Wiki article cites DD Palmer as a problematic character. Look back at the origins of Osteopathic medicine. At the origins of modern medicine. None of it is good.
Yet, you still fault them for the sins of those who came before.
AT Still never went to medical school. Yet DOs are medical doctors.
So, please, define for me what you consider pseudoscience.
I have no problem playing this game and changing the edits however much I can. I think it's a disservice to those who seek chiropractic care into scaring them away when modern evidence points to the benefits and validity. Bonewizard1 (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages follows reliable source. If they say something's pseudoscience that is reflected here. End of story. Bon courage (talk) 06:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
All pseudosciences of a certain minimum age have studies confirming them, but that is not enough for evidence-based medicine, for science-based medicine or for Misplaced Pages to say they are not pseudoscience, since primary studies are only the first step of the science process.
On patient satisfaction LOL, that's a good one. If patients were never satisfied, a medical pseudoscience would not even get started.
What is the limit at which something becomes "science?" See WP:MEDRS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
I hear your concern, Bonewizard, and I _do_ wish we could strike a slightly better middle-ground. Anyone who ever leaned back in a chair and felt the pleasant sensation of 'crack your bones' knows that there's something to Chiropractic, however minimal. But unfortunately, Chiropractors as a field are absolutely known for peddling pseudoscience bordering on snakeoil. For the time being, we do have to warn readers that their field is pseudoscientific.
I would, however, love to see, say, comparison between things like chiropractic and, say, opioids, which consensus now accepts were often overprescribed to the point of malfeasanced -- IF we could find GOOD mainstream RSes, not cherry picked research. Feoffer (talk) 08:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
The physical manipulation part of chiropractic (sort of maybe) 'works' for pain, but then that's just physical manipulation. Chiropractic, to be distinctively chiropractic, is the whole medical system built on the idea that the spine is the root of all health and that dextrous manipulation can cure all ills. Bon courage (talk) 08:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely. But what fraction of practicing Chiropractors still preach that whole 'joint popping can cure all ills' nonsense? Enough that we still need to warn the reader, no doubt. But I do feel for the 'modern' practitioners who are, in essence, folk bone-setters, helping people reset a rib or crack their back or what not, and nothing more. But we DO need to err on the side of caution, Chiropractors will still totally take money to test your blood for fictitious 'toxins'. But I do wish there were better labelling between 'I'll help pop your back' vs 'I'll help cure all your ills' types. Feoffer (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence to support that? From any leadership in chiropractic? They don't teach that.
The spine is central to the profession but no one of any consequence believes that.
Primary evidence is showing immunological changes but the accepted body of work knows and understands there are limits - as there is in any profession. Bonewizard1 (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
It's how it's sold. A quick search quickly finds this where chiropractic is being sold to treat allergies on the basis it addresses the 'root cause' of diseases. Reliable sources apparently see things for how they are, not some idealised form confected as a front. Bon courage (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Does this work?
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/910617?form=fpf Bonewizard1 (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
You were pointed to WP:MEDRS above, you should read it thoroughly. MrOllie (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Pseudoscience is descriptive. You can make a chart of fields claiming to be science and easily determine which belong in which category because we all know what the word means even if we don't like it. Just because it's used dismissively doesn't mean it's inherently a pejorative. 2603:7081:1603:A300:D56:8C74:C3D7:9391 (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
As far as I can tell Jjazz76 was correct when they removed "esoteric" from the lead on account of the Simon source not explicitly supporting "esoteric". I get that Simon seems to be hinting at it with "unconventional", but there's too much air between those wording choices. We're in an awkward position where "esoteric" is still present in the body with the same citation.
Regardless of the language choice, I'd support restoring something brief in the opening paragraph, paired with "pseudoscientific", that nods toward the origins of the practice. I can Google like the best of them, but I'm hoping someone more familiar with the body of sources can point us toward what the good ones say (or don't say) about this. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry I didn't also see the mention of "esoteric" in the body, because it is also unsupported by a RS, and I'm going to delete it.
I'm not going to weight in (yet) on the pseudo-science part of the debate (it is late here), but esotericism has a pretty specific enough meaning, and I'm not seeing a strong enough connection here. If there are some good reliable sources, then that's fine, let's include it, but but the connection as it stands seems tangential at best.
One might claim that chiropractic is pseudo-scientific and esoteric, and unconventional but I think each claim needs a reliable source to support it, and they terms are different enough in that one can't use a claim of one as proof of a claim of one of the other. Jjazz76 (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I think it's important to mention the more comprehensive outlook on patient care that modern chiropractors have. In the UK, every chiropractor I have met and worked with, except for members of older generations, use techniques founded in physiotherapy, osteopathy and other fields of healthcare science; with many chiropractors working with osteopaths and sports therapists. Chiropractic has moved away from the idea of spine manipulation being the 'go-to' and instead tend to a patient's needs in much more versatile ways. I hate the way many people see chiropractic as only 'cracking backs' and I wish more would recognise what a chiropractor actually does. If someone would sit in for a chiropractor's average day at the clinic they would see nutritional advice, soft-tissue work, ultra-scans etc. and many other treatments you wouldn't expect. Healthcare professionals are vital for many people whom couldn't function without their help, many patients being turned away from general practitioners, their stories not being heard; drugs can't solve everything. Klondike4 (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Thats all well and fine, but the costume that chiros put on is still that of a primary care provider, which they are not. There isn't controversy surrounding massusers for example because they don't claim to be doctors. 2607:FEA8:4A62:2F00:AC7B:E1D:4396:EBB (talk) 03:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Chiropractic: Difference between revisions Add topic