Chiropractic for low back pain
BMJ 1998; 317 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.317.7152.160 (Published 18 July 1998) Cite this as: BMJ 1998;317:160
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I'm not a psychiatrist but I do not think I need to be one to say
that the primary motive power producing articles like 'Chiropractic for
l.b.p.'must be a feeling of fear. It is interesting to see how part of the
scentific world is still unconfortably afraid of the consolidate of
Chiropractic in our society.
The insubstantial nature of 'Chiropractic for lbp' is quite clear and
it has been amply shown by the other comments to the article. The script
becomes infact insubstantial been published in a Medical and thus
'Scentific' journal. Mr Ernest's (& co) article would have been almost
fine if published in an illustrated magazine where opinions can be red at
every other page. 'Chiropractic for lbp' infact wants to make an opinion,
it wants to push an opinion, it wants to force an opinion and it seems to
hide a sense of fear about the Chiropractic profession. The article
infact, does not reveal a healthy sense of scientific criticism: the
scientific doubt about something. This is what Cartesius, the scientist
and pilosopher, suggested to be the right attitude toward science, the
famous 'Cartesian's doubt'. Concerning 'Chirpractic for lbp?, it seems
that the authors where not at all moved by a salutary scentific doubt. On
the countrary, it looks like they knew in advance what type of opinion
they wanted to transfer to the readers, before even start writing the
article. This is the exact journalistic method which is profoundly
different from the scentific method where we write without having in mind
an opinion before all the data have been examined. In this article,
insteead, it looks like the bibliography has been searched after the
article was actually written, just to support a journalistic opinion.
Ernest's (& co) article is not written as a consequence of a
sincere scentific doubt about Chiropractic and that's why it shoulden't
have been publisched in a Medical Journal.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Many of the gross misinterpretations in the article in question have already been addressed, such as efficacy and safety. These topics have so exhaustively been researched that it's time to move on to other uses for the limited funds available
in research. The one area which has not been addressed is the comparison of manipulation with mobilisation. In William Kirkaldy-Willis's current edition of the reference work Managing Low Back Pain, not only is there a comparison made between the two, manipulation is shown to be significantly more effective. Perhaps the most important point in this, though, is that the authors do not themselves know the difference. Neurologically mobilisation and manipulation are vastly different. Lower back conditions, such as we are discusing here, are primarily reflexogenic activities. Mobilisation fires muscle spindle fibers which increase the frequency of firing of the target muscle while manipulation fires Golgi tendon organs causing a resetting of the gain and resting length of the target muscle. This is not only different; this is critical. It also explains why manipulation is so much more effective than anything utilised to date. To not understand this difference and claim to treat spinal conditions is an inexcusable ignorance of the basic neurophysiology of the very thing you are claiming to be an expert in. It is disappointing that such a well respected journal would publish such an
article.
Competing interests: No competing interests
In July of 1998 Ernst and Assendelft presented an article in the British Medical Journal entitled “Chiropractic for low back pain: We don’t know whether it does more good than harm” (1). Although well respected researchers and valued contributors in the contemporary push towards ‘evidence-based practice’, it appears that their strive for objectivity has lead to a biased and ill-informed piece of work, that highlights many of the issues against which the antagonists of ‘evidence-based practice’ warn.
The authors address matters of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, but that which is most unhelpful and destructive is their presentation of safety issues.
Whilst correctly stating that cervical manipulation carries a risk of stroke to the posterior circulation they fail to put this statement into context. This risk is, thankfully, very small and is estimated at approximately 1 per 1 million cervical manipulations (2,3). A level of risk described by Calman, in 1996, as “negligible” (4).
To further place this level of risk in context, a possible alternative to cervical spine manipulation is cervical spine neurosurgery, which carries an estimated paralysis rate of 15,600 per million and a mortality rate of 6,900 per million (5,6). Perhaps a more realistic comparison is with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID’s), often prescribed for conditions amenable to spinal manipulative therapy. In 1995 Dabbs and Lauretti (7) reviewed the literature to compare the risk of severe complication from NSAID’s with cervical manipulation, concluding that “cervical manipulation for neck pain is much safer than the use of NSAID’s, by as much as an estimated factor of several hundred times”. Coulter et al (5) estimate that serious complications of NSAID’s, such as gastric perforation and haemorrhage, to be in the region of 1000 per million patients. In England and Wales the gastric bleed incidence for the over sixty population is suggested to be in the region of 1 in 1000 (8) with a very significant correlation between hospitalisation for a serious gastric event and pre-existing use of NSAID.
Furthermore, Ernst and Assendelft (1) ascribe all stroke incidents - or Vertebro Basilar Accidents (VBA) - as complications of ‘chiropractic’. Indeed, closer scrutiny of their cited reference (3), detailing the 165 post-manipulative VBA’s reported world-wide between 1947 and 1993, shows that only 92 (55%) were performed by chiropractors the remainder by medical manipulators, osteopaths, physiotherapists, barbers, self manipulation etc. Given that chiropractors, world-wide, probably administer the majority of manipulations - at least 94% in the USA (9) - these statistics would seem to support chiropractic’s brand of manipulation, not condemn it.
Furthermore, in 1995 Terrett (9) contacted the patients or original authors of many of such case studies and discovered some gross misrepresentations. He cites 30 cases that were attributed to ‘chiropractic’ in the literature but were in fact administered by other members of the manipulative disciplines, the patients themselves, their wives, barbers and even a Kung Fu instructor.
Ernst and Assendelft also claim that fractures are a complication of spinal manipulation (1). Again, this is in part true, but the title of their article again implicates chiropractors alone. The study they cite describes 56 serious complications (other than VBA) from 1925 to 1993, world-wide, of which 31 are fractures, dislocations or involve compression of the myelum. 14 of these are at the hands of chiropractors, the remainder, at the hands of others. Of these 14 cases, 8 demonstrated pre-existing bone disease that would necessarily weaken the bone, such as prostatic metastasis, Pagets etc. No information was available on the remaining 6 cases. It is little wonder that chiropractors place so much emphasis on identifying the non-manipulable lesion through history, examination and x-ray as necessary, in both their training and practice. To have 14 such reported cases in 68 years, only 6 of which were in the last 20 years, world-wide, is frankly anecdotal - and hardly warrants the title of their paper “.. we don’t know whether it (chiropractic) does more good than harm”.
With respect to effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, probably the most comprehensive report has been conducted by professor Pran Manga, a Canadian economist who, produced two exhaustive reports (10,11). He looked at international evidence from the UK, USA and Canada and concluded that “there would be highly significant cost savings if more management of low-back pain was transferred from physicians to chiropractors. Evidence from Canada and other countries suggests potential savings of hundreds of millions annually”.
Professor Manga was also asked to comment on the study that Ernst and Assendelft cite to demonstrate a lack of chiropractic cost- effectiveness (12). He suggests that this is one of only two studies that do not show better cost-effectiveness of chiropractic care and that “both of these are by medical researchers not economists” and “ have significant design problems that render their conclusions unreliable” (13).
Many of Professor Manga’s conclusions on effectiveness are supported by the UK’s Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) who, after a thorough analysis of the appropriate literature, produced guidelines for the management of acute low back pain, and openly support the use of chiropractic and other manipulative disciplines (14). In 1990 Meade et al (15) published the results of a randomised trial on the effectiveness of chiropractic compared with hospital out-patient departments in treating low back pain, with very favourable results. Equally favourable were the results at five year follow-up of the same cohort (16).
Close inspection of the published literature would suggest statements made by Ernst and Assendelft (1), such as “cervical manipulations are burdened with severe adverse reactions, such as vertebrobasilar accidents and paralyses due to fractures” and “on the basis of the current evidence, it seems uncertain whether chiropractic does more good than harm” to be grossly irresponsible.
Clearly, there must be greater care taken when reporting articles that may be unjustly damning to a profession or effective technique. Evidence-based practice is a gold standard towards which we must all progress, but the review of evidence must be accurate, within the context of the clinical discipline to which it relates, and not an isolated ill-informed and theoretical account.
After all, whilst I understand that it is mathematically impossible for Bumble Bees to fly, I believe that there is considerable empirical evidence to the contrary.
Neil Osborne BSc, DC
Senior Clinical Tutor
Anglo-European College of Chiropractic,
Parkwood Road,
Bournemouth.
1 Ernst E, Assendelft W. Chiropractic for low back pain: We don’t know whether it does more good than harm. BMJ 1998; 317:160
2 McGreggor M, Haldeman S, Hohlbeck F. Vertebrobasilar compromise associated with cervical manipulation. Top Clin Chiro 1995; 2(3):63-73
3 Assendelft W, Bouter L, Knipschild PG. Complications of spinal manipulation - a comprehensive review of the literature. J Fam Pract 1996; 42:475-480
4 Calman K. Cancer: science and society and the communication of risk. BMJ 1996:313; 799-802.
5 Coulter ID, Hurwitz EL, Adams AH Meeker WC Hansen DT, Mootz RD, Aker PD, Genovese BJ, Shekelle PG. The appropriateness of manipulation and mobilisation of the cervical spine. RAND 1996. Santa Monica, CA. Document no. MR-781-CR.
6 Thiel H. Chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine and cerebrovascular injury: A comment. Comp Ther in Medicine. 1994;2:231-232.
7 Dabbs and Lauretti .A risk assessment of cervical manipulation Vs NSAID for the treatment of neck pain. J Manip and Physiol Ther 1995;18:8 530-53
8 Langmann MJ, Weil J, Wainwright P et al. Risks of bleeding peptic ulcer associated with individual NSAID. Lancet 1994, 343 :1075-78.
9 Terrett AG. Misuse of the literature by medical authors in discussing spinal manipulative therapy injury. J Manip and Physiol Ther 1995 18:203-210
10 Manga, Angus.Enhanced chiropractic coverage under OHIP as a means of reducing healthcare costs, attaining better health outcomes and improving the public’s access to cost-effective health services. 1988, University of Ottowa, Ottowa, Canada.
11 Manga, Angus et al (The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of chiropractic management of low-back pain Pran Manga associates 1993, University of Ottowa, Ottowa, Canada.
12 Carey, Garrett et al The outcomes and costs of care for the acute low back pain among patients seen by primary care practitioners, chiropractors and orthopaedic surgeons. N Eng J Med 1995 333:913-917
13 Chapman Smith .The Chiropractic Report. 1988 12:2 p2
14 Waddell G, Feder G, McIntosh A, Lewis M, Hutchinson A. Low back pain evidence review. 1996 London: Royal College of General Practitioners
15 Meade et al. Low back pain of mechanical origin: Randomised comparison of chiropractic and hospital outpatient treatment BMJ 1990; 300: 1431-7
16 Meade et al Randomised comparison of chiropractic and hospital outpatient treatment: results from extended follow-up. BMJ 1995; 311
Competing interests: No competing interests
It is truly unfortunate that the authors apparently never interviewed a single Chiropractor or Chiropractic patient before rendering their propaganda laden opinions. First, I for one feel that if the risk factors involved in a cervical manipulation is factually one in one million, then this procedure must be valid. I do not know of any medical procedure which enjoys a similarly low risk factor (eg spinal surgery, lumbar epidural blocks, etc)
Second, to generalize that all chiropractors feel adverse to medical procedures, citing immunization as the example, is ridiculous. We are all doctors seeking the best possible result for our patients. I sincerely hope that these authors are not insinuating that we would believe otherwise.
Third, the use of cervical spinal manipulation to relieve nociception in all areas of the spine is well documented. As we stimulate joint mechanoreceptors in the intervertebral articulations, a cortical response will initiate feedback through reticulo spinal formations and will serve to inhibit nociception.
I believe more homework is necessary before an opinion article like this one is published. The British Medical Journal should set higher standards for their publications. Please keep in mind that all research in the Chiropractic profession is self funded without federal grant money.
If the medical profession is truly interested in cooperation amongst the healing arts, then they should act accordingly.
Competing interests: No competing interests
The Editor,
Editorials
"Chiropractic for Low Back Pain"
BMJ 1998; 317:160-160 (18 July)
This Editorial is titled "Chiropractic for Low Back Pain" but Ernst and Assendelft refer to cervical manipulations, potential overuse of radiographs by chiropractors and a negative attitude of some chiropractors to immunisation. Therefore, one must assume that a buckshot approach aimed fairly and squarely at chiropractic has been taken as topics unrelated to the title of the Editorial have clearly been included.
The apparent attempt to define chiropractic intervention in the Editorial's opening paragraph is incorrect, stating that, for example, chiropractic is used in the "hope of correcting vertebral disc displacements ......" and in the hope of correcting "spinal misalignment". Properly qualified chiropractors do not hope to correct "vertebral disc displacements", by manipulating the spine, as is implied. It would be stupid to contemplate manipulating the spine for disc displacement by which the authors presumably mean extruded disc material. "Spinal misalignment" can be corrected by using an appropriate shoe-raise when leg length inequality and pelvic obliquity are the cause of the postural scoliosis (or spinal misalignment) (Giles and Taylor 1981; Giles 1984).
Ernst and Assendelft have selectively cited the literature. For example, they cite two Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics papers (references 4 and 13) written by Assendelft et al (1996) and Assendelft and Bouter (1993). Why was the important paper by Terrett (1995), in which he clearly cites misuse of the literature by medical authors in discussing spinal manipulative therapy injury, selectively excluded when the Editorial raises the issue of "cervical manipulations are burdened with severe adverse reactions such as vertebrobasilar accidents and paralyses due to fractures"? The only reference to this topic is by Assendelft et al 1996 (reference 5).
Ernst and Assendelft apparently saw it as appropriate that Ernst's paper "Chiropractors' use of X-rays" should be included (reference 8), as well as Ernst's paper which apparently refers to "negative attitude of some chiropractors towards immunisation" (reference 9).
Normally, scientific documents at least reflect the topic under discussion in the title and, in my opinion, the Editorial's title is misleading. Furthermore, from a scientific point of view, it would be more appropriate to use references other than a preponderance of one's own to make a particular point, and not to omit any pertinent reference such as Terrett's (1995).
Finally, I have often wondered how the BMJ Editorial Board published the paper "Spinal Manipulation and Mobilisation for Back and Neck Pain: a blinded Review" by Koes, Assendelft, Vander Heijden, Bouter and Knipschild (1991) when the authors made the following statement under Introduction: "Manipulation involves a high velocity thrust to a joint beyond its restricted range of movement. Mobilisation uses low velocity passive movements within or at the limit of joint range", citing Ottenbacher and Di Fabio (1985). Koes et al (1991) then stated "throughout this article we will use manipulation to cover both manipulation and mobilisation" - a preposterous statement for anyone purporting to know anything about manipulation or mobilisation!
Assendelft WJJ, Bouter LM, Knipschild PG. Complications of spinal manipulation - a comprehensive review of the literature. J Fam Pract 1996; 42: 475-480.
Assendelft WJJ, Bouter LM. Does the goose really lay golden eggs? A methological review of workmen's compensation studies. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1993; 16: 161-168.
Assendelft WJJ, Koes BW, Van der Heijden GJMG, Bouter LM. The effectiveness of chiropractic for treatment of low back pain: an update and attempt at statistical pooling. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1996; 19: 499-507
Ernst E. Chiropractors' use of X-rays. Br J Radiol (in press).
Ernst E. The attitude against immunisation within some branches of complementary medicine. Eur J Pediatr 1997; 156: 513-515.
Giles LGF, Taylor JR. Low back pain associated with leg length inequality. Spine 1981; 6: 510-521.
Giles LGF. Letter to the Editor. Spine 1984; 9: 842.
Koes BW, Assendelft WJJ, vander Heijden GJMG, Bouter LM, Knipschild PG. Spinal manipulation and mobilisation for back and neck pain: a blinded review. BMJ 1991; 303; 1298-1303.
Ottenbacher K, De Fabio RP. Efficacy of spinal manipulation/mobilisation therapy; a meta-analysis. Spine 1985; 10-833-837.
Terrett AGJ. Misuse of the literature by medical authors in discussing spinal manipulative therapy injury. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1995; 18: 203-210.
Competing interests: No competing interests
EDITOR,
The Editorial, "Chiropractic for low back pain - we don't know whether it does more good than harm"1, seems to have been written more in a spirit of professional aversion than one of critical doubt. This impression is conditioned by previous commentaries by these authors in the popular press2 and the biomedical literature3-6.
The question is why? There is substantial scientific evidence that the manipulation that chiropractors (and indeed osteopaths and some physiotherapists) do for back pain is both effective and safe. This evidence has been reviewed by multidisciplinary panels of experts in both the UK and USA7-8 , resulting in the production of two national clinical practice guidelines for acute back pain which totally disagree with these authors. The only randomised controlled trial of overall chiropractic management for back pain9-10, in contrast to manipulation alone, is not mentioned in this Editorial, yet this trial (included erroneously by one of these authors in 199111 in a review of manipulation trials) was ranked as high quality, was positive in its evidence for chiropractic management and yet was subsequently condemned as seriously flawed by him in a separate paper6. This Editorial is equally contradictory.
No one would dispute the need to research further the evidence for the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety of manipulation and associated treatment approaches. The Medical Research Council is currently supporting a large randomised trial in this area by a multidisciplinary research team led by the Department of Health Sciences and Clinical Evaluation at the University of York. Many other studies are in progress. Nevertheless, the current UK National Clinical Practice Guideline Evidence Review states: "Within the first 6 weeks of acute or recurrent low back pain, manipulation provides better short-term improvement in pain and activity levels and higher patient satisfaction than the treatments to which it has been compared." and "The risks of manipulation for low back pain are very low, provided patients are selected and assessed properly and it is carried out by a trained therapist or practitioner" 7.
Both the Chiropractors and Osteopaths Acts and their General Councils will provide these assurances for the public, however, there is no certainty in science. Those who demand certain proof of things are already prejudiced against them.
Alan Breen, Research Director
Anglo-European College of Chiropractic, Bournemouth BH5 2DF
1. Ernst E, Assendelft WJJ. Chiropractic for low back pain - we don't know whether it does more good than harm. British Medical Journal 1998;317:160. (18 July)
2. Ernst E. Hidden truths behind healing hands. The Independent 1998, June 2.
3. Ernst E. Beyond reasonable doubt. New Scientist 1998 April 18:49.
4. Ernst E. Cervical manipulation - is it really safe? Internal Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine 1994;145-49.
5. Ernst E. Bitter pills of nature: safety issues in complementary medicine. Pain 1995;60:237-38.
6. Assendelft WJJ, Bouter LM, Kessels AGJ. Effectiveness of chiropractic and physiotherapy in the treatment of low back pain: a critical discussion of the British Randomised Clinical Trial. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 1991;14(5):281-86.
7. Waddell G, Feder G, McIntosh A, Lewis M, Hutchinson A. Clinical guidelines for the management of acute low back pain: clinical guidelines and evidence review. London: Royal College of General Practitioners, 1996.
8. Agency for Health Care Policy Research. Management guidelines for acute back pain. Washington DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1994.
9. Meade TW, Dyer S, Browne W, Townsend J, Frank AO. Low back pain of mechanical origin: randomised comparison of chiropractic and hospital outpatient treatment. British Medical Journal 1990;300(6737):1431-37. (June)
10. Meade TW, Dyer S, Browne W, Frank AO. Randomised comparison of chiropractic and hospital outpatient management for low back pain: results from extended follow-up. British Medical Journal 1995;311:349-51. (November)
11. Koes BW, Assendelft WJJ, van der Heijden GJMG, Bouter LM, Knipschild PG. Spinal manipulation and mobilisation for back and neck pain: a blinded review. British Medical Journal 1991;303:1298-1302. (November)
Competing interests: No competing interests
To the Editor:
If you would like information on chiropractic's track record for treating low-back pain, perhaps you should ask the 20 million patients who will visit doctors of chiropractic this year alone.
Patient satisfaction with chiropractic care has consistently rated higher than traditional medical care for low-back pain. A significant recent study found that "compared to those who sought care from medical doctors, those who sought care from chiropractors were more likely to feel that treatment was helpful, more likely to be satisfied with their care, and less likely to seek care from another provider for that same episode of pain." [Spine, Carey et al. (1996)]
A study published in the July 1, 1998 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine shows that chiropractic treatment is appropriate for low-back pain in a considerable number of cases. The study by the Rand Corporation found that 46 percent of a sample of low-back pain patients received appropriate care from doctors of chiropractic — an appropriateness rating similar to that of common medical procedures.
In addition, chiropractic is one of the safest forms of treatment available today. According to a study by the Rand Corporation, a serious adverse reaction from cervical manipulation occurs once in 1 million manipulations. [Spine, Hurwitz et al. (1996)]. Complication rates for manipulation of the lumbar region of the spine are even lower, with odds of a serious reaction occurring in one in 100 million manipulations. [Annals of Internal Medicine, Shekelle et al, (1992)]. When compared to the number of illnesses and deaths that will occur this year from the appropriate use of prescription and over-the-counter drugs, the number of serious complications from chiropractic treatment is extremely low. A study published in the April 15, 1998 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association found that more than 2 million Americans become seriously ill every year from reactions to correctly-prescribed drugs and 106,000 die from those side effects.
My profession, like every other health care profession, is by no means beyond reproach. I agree that more and better chiropractic research is required. More and better medical research is required as well. It is my hope that the chiropractic and medical professions will continue to work together in this regard. Our patients will be the ultimate beneficiaries.
Sincerely,
Michael D. Pedigo, D.C.
President
American Chiropractic Association
Competing interests: No competing interests
Editor,
Is fairness outmoded, I asked myself, as I read Ernst and Assendelft's article1? They assert that "cervical manipulations are burdened with severe adverse reactions...", yet a 1996 RAND Corporation report2 surveying "The Appropriateness of Manipulation and Mobilization of the Cervical Spine" found that serious complications from manipulation occur with a frequency of one in one million treatments and that mortality is three in 10 million treatments. Moreover this refers to all manipulations, not just those carried out by Chiropractors. But, the iatrogenic burden of NSAIDs ingestion is, arguably, orders of magnitude greater, with serious GI events occurring at a rate of one in a thousand. Severe neurological complications from cervical spine surgery run at nearly 16 in every thousand cases with associated mortality being about seven per thousand cases.
I shall leave debate about the effectiveness of Chiropractic in the treatment of low back pain to my betters but I think it only reasonable to remind readers of two articles published in this journal in 19903 and 19954 reporting the results of an MRC trial, and its follow up of the same cohort, the authors of which concluded that "at three years the results confirm the findings of the earlier report that ........ those treated by chiropractic derive more benefit and long term satisfaction than those treated by hospitals."
Were Ernst and Assendelft to write their article again substituting any one of hundreds of 'classical' medical or surgical interventions, for chiropractic and low back pain, they could cast a similar shadow over many well-known, accepted and effective therapies which would be judged ineffective and unsafe using the scales they have employed to weigh the case of chiropractic!
Christopher Davis OBE
Consultant in Pharmaceutical Medicine and Applied Physiology
Og House
Ogbourne St George
Marlborough
Wiltshire SN8 1TF
1 Ernst E, Assendelft WJJ. Chiropractic for low back pain.
BMJ 1998;7152:160.
2 Coulter et al. The Appropriateness of Manipulation and
Mobilization of the Cervical Spine. RAND Document No MR-781-CR
1996 Santa Monica, California.
3 Meade et al. Low back pain of mechanical origin: Randomized
comparison of chiropractic and hospital outpatients treatment.
BMJ 1990;300:1431-7.
4 Meade et al. Randomized comparison of chiropractic and hospital
and outpatient treatments: results from extended follow-up.
BMJ 1995;311:349-351.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Having dealt with chronic low back pain patients in a multi-disciplinary Chronic Pain Program for nearly twenty years and currently assessing complex low back pain problems, this leads me to make the following observations:
First of all, it is my strong conviction that most low back pain symptoms, persisting for longer than three or four weeks, are either on the basis of a medical underlying condition, or due to lumbar disc related pathology and NOT due to so-called "musculo-ligamentous injury"! Premature Adolescent Discogenic Disease is but one example.
However, regardless of the underlying pathology, there are two reasons why chiropractic may improve low back pain patients.
Firstly, to have daily "treatments" means for the patients to get out of bed, get dressed and get to the office and back. In other words, they engage in some physical activity, which is many times better than lying on the couch or on the floor, taking narcotic analgesics!
Secondly, the chiropractor literally puts his or her hands on the patient's back instead of only talking and advising from the other side of the desk!
The patient, quite appropriately, translates this into a sense of caring and compassion, which has an enormous placebo effect!
Klaas J. Postma MD
Competing interests: No competing interests
Confusing a Profession with a Treatment Modality Again
Dear Editor:
Here it is almost 2000, and in their editorial, Ernst and Assendelft
confound the use of the word "chiropractic" with the chiropractic
treatment modality called spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). The word
"chiropractic" is derived from the Greek "to practice by hand". It is
both an adjective and a noun. Chiropractic, the profession, does include
SMT, as the authors state in the first sentence of their editorial. In
their second sentence, they appear to confuse the two. By the third
paragraph, the two terms are synonymous for these authors, as they equate
cervical SMT with chiropractic by asking "Is chiropractic safe?".
But clearly, "chiropractic" is not just cervical spine manipulation,
or spinal manipulation alone. Chiropractic, i.e., chiropractic treatment,
includes SMT, massage techniques such as myofascial release and
triggerpoint myotherapy, intersegmental traction (a newer form of
cervicothoracic or lumbosacral traction), established physicial therapy
modalities such as ultrasonic therapy or electric muscle stimulation. It
includes rehabilitative medicine procedures such as exercise, bracing,
taping, splinting, casting. Botanical medicines, like those found in the
PDR FOR HERBAL MEDICINES, are often prescribed. All of these treatments
have already been determined to be safe. So clearly, chiropractic is
safe.
Further, "chiropractic", as a profession, uses diagnostics that are
IDENTICAL to the medical profession. For example, you would be hard
pressed to find a chiropractic physician, at least in the U.S. where I
live, who would not perform an excellent neurological examination of his
or her patients. There is no need for an allopathic medical portal of
entry for cervical spine manipulation, as D.C.'s perform neurological
screens for this procedure very well, and perhaps more effectively than
the average general practitioner. I gather from the authors' editorial
that they are positioning themselves for control of entry into the system.
No need, thank you.
D.C.'s perform thorough physical and orthopedic examinations as well.
And because chiropractic physicians assess functional components of
injuries and conditions, we offer an important mode of diagnosis that,
while similar to occupational medicine, is certainly complementary to
allopathic medicine.
The authors' concern about "the potential overuse of radiographs" by
chiropractic physicians appears to be a calculated scare tactic by them,
unless it represents a preference for talking about the Dark Ages of
medicine before 1960, now almost 40 years ago. Clearly, chiropractic
physicians today are well-educated, and do not overuse radiology as a
diagnostic technique, at least any more than conventional medicine does
(read: How to boost capital to pay for the emergency room). Hearsay
evidence plus the one study mentioned hardly gives one pause for concern.
Perhaps the authors might consider joining the current decade, where
chiropractic physicians are working in U.S. hospitals, HMO and PPO
organizations, where they occupy positions in important government health
organizations. In the U.S., they are important members of the U.S.
Olympic Team medical staff, and Team Physicians for professional sports
teams and individual athletes.
If not, then at least they might consider undoing their
misrepresentation of the profession of chiropractic as one of its many
effective techniques. After all, it's almost 2000.
Sincerely,
Gregory T. Wright, D.C.
Competing interests: No competing interests