Identifying sports chiropractic global research priorities: an international Delphi study of sports chiropractors.

Objectives: Developing a research agenda is one method to facilitate broad research planning and prioritise research within a discipline. Despite profession-specific agendas, none have specifically addressed the research needs of the specialty of sports chiropractic. This study determined consensus on research priorities to inform a global sports chiropractic research agenda. Methods: A Delphi consensus methodology was used to integrate expert opinions. Clinicians, academics and leaders from the international sports chiropractic specialty were recruited using purposive sampling to participate in (1) a Delphi panel involving three voting rounds to determine consensus on research priorities and (2) a priority importance ranking of the items that reached consensus. Results: We identified and contacted 141 participants, with response rates for rounds 1, 2 and 3, of 44%, 31% and 34%, respectively. From the original 149 research priorities, 66 reached consensus in round 1, 63 in round 2 and 45 items in round 3. Research priorities reaching consensus were collapsed by removing redundancies, and priority ranking identified 20 research priorities, 11 related to collaboration and 6 to research themes. Conclusions: The top-ranked items for research priorities, research themes and collaborations included the effects of interventions on performance, recovery and return to play; clinical research in sport; and collaborations with researchers in chiropractic educational institutions, respectively. Implications: The prioritisation of research items can be evaluated by key stakeholders (including athletes) and implemented to develop the first international research agenda for sports chiropractic.

Associations between demographics and clinical ideology, beliefs, and practice patterns: a secondary analysis of a survey of randomly sampled United States chiropractors.

BACKGROUND: The chiropractic profession in the United States (US) has a long history of intra-professional discourse surrounding ideology and beliefs. Large-scale efforts have evaluated 3 distinctive subgroups of US chiropractors focused on these areas of practice: spine/neuromusculoskeletal, primary care, and vertebral subluxation. To our knowledge, there have not been any prior studies exploring the factors associated with these ideology and belief characteristics of these subgroups. The purpose of this study was to explore, describe, and characterize the association of US chiropractors' ideology, beliefs, and practice patterns with: 1) chiropractic degree program of graduation, 2) years since completion of chiropractic degree, and 3) US geographic region of primary practice. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional survey of a random sample of US licensed chiropractors (n = 8975). A 10% random sample was extracted from each of the 50 states and District of Columbia chiropractic regulatory board lists. The survey was conducted between March 2018-January 2020. The survey instrument consisted of 7 items that were developed to elicit these differentiating ideologies, beliefs, and practice patterns: 1) clinical examination/assessment, 2) health conditions treated, 3) role of chiropractors in the healthcare system, 4) the impact of chiropractic adjustments [spinal manipulation] in treating patients with cancer, 5) vaccination attitudes, 6) detection of subluxation on x-ray, and 7) x-ray utilization rates. Multinomial regression was used to analyze associations between these 7 ideology and practice characteristic items from the survey (dependent variables) and the 3 demographic items listed above (independent variables). RESULTS: Data from 3538 respondents (74.6% male) were collected with an overall response rate of 39.4%. Patterns of responses to the 7 survey items for ideologies, beliefs, and practice characteristics were significantly different based on chiropractic degree program of graduation, years since completion of chiropractic degree, and geographic region of primary practice. CONCLUSIONS: Among US chiropractors, chiropractic program of graduation, years since completion of chiropractic degree, and geographic region of primary practice are associated with variations in clinical ideology, beliefs, and practice patterns. The wide variation and inconsistent beliefs of US chiropractors could result in public confusion and impede interprofessional integration.

The effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy procedures for spine pain: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a guideline-recommended treatment option for spinal pain. The recommendation is based on multiple systematic reviews. However, these reviews fail to consider that clinical effects may depend on SMT "application procedures" (i.e., how and where SMT is applied). Using network meta-analyses, we aim to investigate which SMT "application procedures" have the greatest magnitude of clinical effectiveness for reducing pain and disability, for any spinal complaint, at short-term and long-term follow-up. We will compare application procedural parameters by classifying the thrust application technique and the application site (patient positioning, assisted, vertebral target, region target, Technique name, forces, and vectors, application site selection approach and rationale) against: 1. Waiting list/no treatment; 2. Sham interventions not resembling SMT (e.g., detuned ultrasound); 3. Sham interventions resembling SMT; 4. Other therapies not recommended in clinical practice guidelines; and 5. Other therapies recommended in clinical practice guidelines. Secondly, we will examine how contextual elements, including procedural fidelity (whether the SMT was delivered as planned) and clinical applicability (whether the SMT is similar to clinical practice) of the SMT. METHODS: We will include randomized controlled trials (RCT) found through three search strategies, (i) exploratory, (ii) systematic, and (iii) other known sources. We define SMT as a high-velocity low-amplitude thrust or grade V mobilization. Eligibility is any RCT assessing SMT against any other type of SMT, any other active or sham intervention, or no treatment control on adult patients with pain in any spinal region. The RCTs must report on continuous pain intensity and/or disability outcomes. Two authors will independently review title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction. Spinal manipulative therapy techniques will be classified according to the technique application and choice of application sites. We will conduct a network-meta analysis using a frequentist approach and multiple subgroup and sensitivity analyses. DISCUSSION: This will be the most extensive review of thrust SMT to date, and will allow us to estimate the importance of different SMT application procedures used in clinical practice and taught across educational settings. Thus, the results are applicable to clinical practice, educational settings, and research studies. PROSPERO registration: CRD42022375836.

The importance of selecting the correct site to apply spinal manipulation when treating spinal pain: Myth or reality? A systematic review.

The concept that spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) outcomes are optimized when the treatment is aimed at a clinically relevant joint is commonly assumed and central to teaching and clinical use (candidate sites). This systematic review investigated whether clinical effects are superior when this is the case compared to SMT applied elsewhere (non-candidate sites). Eligible study designs were randomized controlled trials that investigated the effect of spinal manipulation applied to candidate versus non-candidate sites for spinal pain. We obtained data from four different databases. Risk of bias was assessed using an adjusted Cochrane risk of bias tool, adding four items for study quality. We extracted between-group differences for any reported outcome or, when not reported, calculated effect sizes from the within-group changes. We compared outcomes for SMT applied at a 'relevant' site to SMT applied elsewhere. We prioritized methodologically robust studies when interpreting results. Ten studies, all of acceptable quality, were included that reported 33 between-group differences-five compared treatments within the same spinal region and five at different spinal regions. None of the nine studies with low or moderate risk of bias reported statistically significant between-group differences for any outcome. The tenth study reported a small effect on pain (1.2/10, 95%CI - 1.9 to - 0.5) but had a high risk of bias. None of the nine articles of low or moderate risk of bias and acceptable quality reported that "clinically-relevant" SMT has a superior outcome on any outcome compared to "not clinically-relevant" SMT. This finding contrasts with ideas held in educational programs and clinical practice that emphasize the importance of joint-specific application of SMT.

Agreement of primary outcomes in chiropractic-related clinical trials registered in clinicaltrials.gov with corresponding publication.

INTRODUCTION: Previous analysis of registered clinical trials has found a number of protocols result in changes in the registered primary outcome measures. This investigation determined if reported primary outcomes in chiropractic-related clinical trials registered in clinicaltrials.gov match their published results. Additionally, we assessed secondary outcomes, publication status and whether raw data were posted to the registry. METHODS: Clinicaltrials.gov was searched for chiropractic-related trials and having a completed status. If the study was published, outcome measures were compared between the clinicaltrials.gov entry and the published paper to assess for consistency. RESULTS: Within clinicaltrials.gov 171 chiropracticrelated protocols were identified with 102 of those published (59.6% publication rate). Ninety-two of the published papers (90.2%) had agreement between their primary outcome and the entry on clinicaltrials.gov and 82 (80.4%) agreed with the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: A modest rate of agreement between clinicaltrials.gov entries and the published papers was found. While chiropractic-related clinical trials are fewer compared to medical trials, chiropractic-related research has a substantially better rate of primary and secondary outcome concordance with registered protocols.

INTRODUCTION: En examinant des essais cliniques enregistrés, on s'est rendu compte qu'un certain nombre de protocoles faisaient varier les résultats principaux. On a mené une étude pour savoir si les résultats primaires d'essais cliniques sur la chiropratique enregistrés sur clinicaltrials.gov correspondaient à ceux publiés. On a aussi examiné les résultats secondaires, l'état de publication et cherché à savoir si les données brutes étaient publiées dans le registre. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Dans la base de données Clinicaltrials.gov, on a repéré des essais cliniques sur la chiropratique qui étaient terminés. Lorsque l'essai clinique avait été publié, on a comparé les résultats au moment de son enregistrement sur clinicaltrials.gov à ceux parus dans des publications pour savoir s'ils concordaient. RÉSULTATS: Sur le site clinicaltrials.gov, on a trouvé 171 études sur la chiropratique, dont 102 avaient été publiés (taux de publication:59,6 %). Pour quatrevingt-douze publications (90,2 %), on a observé une concordance entre les résultats primaires au moment de l'enregistrement sur clinicaltrials.gov et 82 (80,4 %) et les résultats secondaires. CONCLUSION: On a observé un taux modeste de concordance entre les données à l'enregistrement sur clinicaltrails.gov et les données publiées. Les essais cliniques sur la chiropratique sont moins nombreux que des essais cliniques de médicaments. Mais le taux de concordance entre les résultats primaires et les résultats secondaires était considérablement plus élevé lorsque les protocoles de recherches sur la chiropratique sont enregistrés.

Evaluation of United States chiropractic professional subgroups: a survey of randomly sampled chiropractors.

BACKGROUND: Professional subgroups are common and may play a role in aiding professional maturity or impeding professional legitimization. The chiropractic profession in the United States has a long history of diverse intra-professional subgroups with varying ideologies and practice styles. To our knowledge, large-scale quantification of chiropractic professional subgroups in the United States has not been conducted. The purpose of this study was to quantify and describe the clinical practice beliefs and behaviors associated with United States chiropractic subgroups. METHODS: A 10% random sample of United States licensed chiropractors (n = 8975) was selected from all 50 state regulatory board lists and invited to participate in a survey. The survey consisted of a 7-item questionnaire; 6 items were associated with chiropractic ideological and practice characteristics and 1 item was related to the self-identified role of chiropractic in the healthcare system which was utilized as the dependent variable to identify chiropractic subgroups. Multinomial logistic regression with predictive margins was used to analyze which responses to the 6 ideology and practice characteristic items were predictive of chiropractic subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 3538 responses were collected (39.4% response rate). Respondents self-identified into three distinct subgroups based on the perceived role of the chiropractic profession in the greater healthcare system: 56.8% were spine/neuromusculoskeletal focused; 22.0% were primary care focused; and 21.2% were vertebral subluxation focused. Patterns of responses to the 6 ideologies and practice characteristic items were substantially different across the three professional subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents self-identified into one of three distinct intra-professional subgroups. These subgroups can be differentiated along themes related to clinical practice beliefs and behaviors.

The global summit on the efficacy and effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy for the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: A small proportion of chiropractors, osteopaths, and other manual medicine providers use spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) to manage non-musculoskeletal disorders. However, the efficacy and effectiveness of these interventions to prevent or treat non-musculoskeletal disorders remain controversial. OBJECTIVES: We convened a Global Summit of international scientists to conduct a systematic review of the literature to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of SMT for the primary, secondary and tertiary prevention of non-musculoskeletal disorders. GLOBAL SUMMIT: The Global Summit took place on September 14-15, 2019 in Toronto, Canada. It was attended by 50 researchers from 8 countries and 28 observers from 18 chiropractic organizations. At the summit, participants critically appraised the literature and synthesized the evidence. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and the Index to Chiropractic Literature from inception to May 15, 2019 using subject headings specific to each database and free text words relevant to manipulation/manual therapy, effectiveness, prevention, treatment, and non-musculoskeletal disorders. Eligible for review were randomized controlled trials published in English. The methodological quality of eligible studies was assessed independently by reviewers using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) criteria for randomized controlled trials. We synthesized the evidence from articles with high or acceptable methodological quality according to the Synthesis without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) Guideline. The final risk of bias and evidence tables were reviewed by researchers who attended the Global Summit and 75% (38/50) had to approve the content to reach consensus. RESULTS: We retrieved 4997 citations, removed 1123 duplicates and screened 3874 citations. Of those, the eligibility of 32 articles was evaluated at the Global Summit and 16 articles were included in our systematic review. Our synthesis included six randomized controlled trials with acceptable or high methodological quality (reported in seven articles). These trials investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the management of infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. None of the trials evaluated the effectiveness of SMT in preventing the occurrence of non-musculoskeletal disorders. Consensus was reached on the content of all risk of bias and evidence tables. All randomized controlled trials with high or acceptable quality found that SMT was not superior to sham interventions for the treatment of these non-musculoskeletal disorders. Six of 50 participants (12%) in the Global Summit did not approve the final report. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review included six randomized clinical trials (534 participants) of acceptable or high quality investigating the efficacy or effectiveness of SMT for the treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders. We found no evidence of an effect of SMT for the management of non-musculoskeletal disorders including infantile colic, childhood asthma, hypertension, primary dysmenorrhea, and migraine. This finding challenges the validity of the theory that treating spinal dysfunctions with SMT has a physiological effect on organs and their function. Governments, payers, regulators, educators, and clinicians should consider this evidence when developing policies about the use and reimbursement of SMT for non-musculoskeletal disorders.

Misinformation, chiropractic, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, the World Health Organization elevated the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic to a pandemic and called for urgent and aggressive action worldwide. Public health experts have communicated clear and emphatic strategies to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Hygiene rules and social distancing practices have been implemented by entire populations, including 'stay-at-home' orders in many countries. The long-term health and economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic are not yet known. MAIN TEXT: During this time of crisis, some chiropractors made claims on social media that chiropractic treatment can prevent or impact COVID-19. The rationale for these claims is that spinal manipulation can impact the nervous system and thus improve immunity. These beliefs often stem from nineteenth-century chiropractic concepts. We are aware of no clinically relevant scientific evidence to support such statements. We explored the internet and social media to collect examples of misinformation from Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand regarding the impact of chiropractic treatment on immune function. We discuss the potential harm resulting from these claims and explore the role of chiropractors, teaching institutions, accrediting agencies, and legislative bodies. CONCLUSIONS: Members of the chiropractic profession share a collective responsibility to act in the best interests of patients and public health. We hope that all chiropractic stakeholders will view the COVID-19 pandemic as a call to action to eliminate the unethical and potentially dangerous claims made by chiropractors who practise outside the boundaries of scientific evidence.

The prevalence of the term subluxation in chiropractic degree program curricula throughout the world.

Background: The subluxation construct generates debate within and outside the profession. The International Chiropractic Education Collaboration, comprised of 10 chiropractic programs outside of North America, stated they will only teach subluxation in a historical context. This research sought to determine how many chiropractic institutions worldwide still use the term in their curricula and to expand upon the previous work of Mirtz & and Perle. Methods: Forty-six chiropractic programs, 18 United States (US) and 28 non-US, were identified from the World Federation of Chiropractic Educational Institutions list. Websites were searched by multiple researchers for curricular information September 2016-September 2017. Some data were not available on line, so email requests were made for additional information. Two institutions provided additional information. The total number of mentions of subluxation in course titles, technique course (Tech) descriptions, principles and practice (PP) descriptions, and other course descriptions were reported separately for US and non-US institutions. Means for each category were calculated. The number of course titles and descriptions using subluxation was divided by the total number of courses for each institution and reported as percentages. Results: Means for use of subluxation by US institutions were: Total course titles = .44; Tech = 3.83; PP = 1.50; other = 1.16. For non-US institutions, means were: Total course titles = .07; Tech = .27; PP = .44; other = 0. The mean total number of mentions was 6.94 in US vs. 0.83 in non-US institutions. Similarly, the mean course descriptions was 6.50 in US vs. 0.72 in non-US institutions. Conclusions: The term subluxation was found in all but two US course catalogues. The use of subluxation in US courses rose from a mean of 5.53 in 2011 to 6.50 in 2017. US institutions use the term significantly more frequently than non-US. Possible reasons for this were discussed. Unscientific terms and concepts should have no place in modern education, except perhaps in historical context. Unless these outdated concepts are rejected, the chiropractic profession and individual chiropractors will likely continue to face difficulties integrating with established health care systems and attaining cultural authority as experts in conservative neuro-musculoskeletal health care.

Biased online media coverage: chiropractic and stroke in google news.

Background: Chiropractic has professional tensions with other medical disciplines. This sets up a biased online media coverage of controversial issues, such as the unverified causal relation between chiropractic treatment and stroke. The objective of this study is to find and analyze recent online media texts relevant to the alleged causal relation between chiropractic treatment and stroke, using Google News search, including such characteristics of texts as tone and position on Google News Search Engine Results Page (SERP). Methods: We built a research design of quantitative content analysis of online media coverage of the unverified causal relation between chiropractic treatment and stroke throughout the year 2015, from January 1 to December 31, using Google News. We operationalized appropriate frames as keywords inclusive to this relation, to carry out a comprehensive search for relevant online texts. The collected media texts were extensively analyzed for frequencies of keywords and locations of keywords, and for tones as positive, neutral, negative connotation, or negative, measuring 12 variables on categorical scales. Results: Our search identified a total of 146 relevant online media texts, corresponding to the frames, which were all analyzed. The vast majority of identified texts had a negative tone or connotation, but most were not located on the first search page. Conclusions: The chiropractic profession is concerned about the biased media coverage of the unverified causal relation between chiropractic treatment and stroke. However, our data show that there are very few relevant media texts online within the timeframe of this study, and the majority of them appear after the first page of Google News SERP. But, most texts present a negative tone or connotation, and a lot of links to online and social media embedded in these texts extend their traffic and reach.

Does case misclassification threaten the validity of studies investigating the relationship between neck manipulation and vertebral artery dissection stroke? No.

BACKGROUND: The purported relationship between cervical manipulative therapy (CMT) and stroke related to vertebral artery dissection (VAD) has been debated for several decades. A large number of publications, from case reports to case-control studies, have investigated this relationship. A recent article suggested that case misclassification in the case-control studies on this topic resulted in biased odds ratios in those studies. DISCUSSION: Given its rarity, the best epidemiologic research design for investigating the relationship between CMT and VAD is the case-control study. The addition of a case-crossover aspect further strengthens the scientific rigor of such studies by reducing bias. The most recent studies investigating the relationship between CMT and VAD indicate that the relationship is not causal. In fact, a comparable relationship between vertebral artery-related stroke and visits to a primary care physician has been observed. The statistical association between visits to chiropractors and VAD can best be explained as resulting from a patient with early manifestation of VAD (neck pain with or without headache) seeking the services of a chiropractor for relief of this pain. Sometime after the visit the patient experiences VAD-related stroke that would have occurred regardless of the care received. This explanation has been challenged by a recent article putting forth the argument that case misclassification is likely to have biased the odds ratios of the case-control studies that have investigated the association between CMT and vertebral artery related stroke. The challenge particularly focused on one of the case-control studies, which had concluded that the association between CMT and vertebral artery related stroke was not causal. It was suggested by the authors of the recent article that misclassification led to an underestimation of risk. We argue that the information presented in that article does not support the authors' claim for a variety of reasons, including the fact that the assumptions upon which their analysis is based lack substantiation and the fact that any possible misclassification would not have changed the conclusion of the study in question. CONCLUSION: Current evidence does not support the notion that misclassification threatens the validity of recent case-control studies investigating the relationship between CMT and VAD. Hence, the recent re-analysis cannot refute the conclusion from previous studies that CMT is not a cause of VAD.

Chiropractic identity, role and future: a survey of North American chiropractic students.

BACKGROUND: The literature pertaining to chiropractic students' opinions with respect to the desired future status of the chiropractic physician is limited and is an appropriate topic worthy of study. A previous pilot study was performed at a single chiropractic college. This current study is an expansion of this pilot project to collect data from chiropractic students enrolled in colleges throughout North America. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to investigate North American chiropractic students' opinions concerning professional identity, role and future. METHODS: A 23-item cross-sectional electronic questionnaire was developed. A total of 7,455 chiropractic students from 12 North American English-speaking chiropractic colleges were invited to complete the survey. Survey items encompassed demographics, evidence-based practice, chiropractic identity and setting, and scope of practice. Data were collected and descriptive statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 1,247 (16.7% response rate) questionnaires were electronically submitted. Most respondents agreed (34.8%) or strongly agreed (52.2%) that it is important for chiropractors to be educated in evidence-based practice. A majority agreed (35.6%) or strongly agreed (25.8%) the emphasis of chiropractic intervention is to eliminate vertebral subluxations/vertebral subluxation complexes. A large number of respondents (55.2%) were not in favor of expanding the scope of the chiropractic profession to include prescribing medications with appropriate advanced training. Most respondents estimated that chiropractors should be considered mainstream health care practitioners (69.1%). Several respondents (46.8%) think that chiropractic research should focus on the physiological mechanisms of chiropractic adjustments. CONCLUSION: The chiropractic students in this study showed a preference for participating in mainstream health care, report an exposure to evidence-based practice, and desire to hold to traditional chiropractic theories and practices. The majority of students would like to see an emphasis on correction of vertebral subluxation, while a larger percent found it is important to learn about evidence-based practice. These two key points may seem contradictory, suggesting cognitive dissonance. Or perhaps some students want to hold on to traditional theory (e.g., subluxation-centered practice) while recognizing the need for further research to fully explore these theories. Further research on this topic is needed.