Inappropriate use of the title 'chiropractor' and term 'chiropractic manipulation' in the peer-reviewed biomedical literature.

BACKGROUND: The misuse of the title 'chiropractor' and term 'chiropractic manipulation', in relation to injury associated with cervical spine manipulation, have previously been reported in the peer-reviewed literature. The objectives of this study were to--1) Prospectively monitor the peer-reviewed literature for papers reporting an association between chiropractic, or chiropractic manipulation, and injury; 2) Contact lead authors of papers that report such an association in order to determine the basis upon which the title 'chiropractor' and/or term 'chiropractic manipulation' was used; 3) Document the outcome of submission of letters to the editors of journals wherein the title 'chiropractor', and/or term 'chiropractic manipulation', had been misused and resulted in the over-reporting of chiropractic induced injury. METHODS: One electronic database (PubMed) was monitored prospectively, via monthly PubMed searches, during a 12 month period (June 2003 to May 2004). Once relevant papers were located, they were reviewed. If the qualifications and/or profession of the care provider/s were not apparent, an attempt was made to confirm them via direct e-mail communication with the principal researcher of each respective paper. A letter was then sent to the editor of each involved journal. RESULTS: A total of twenty four different cases, spread across six separate publications, were located via the monthly PubMed searches. All twenty four cases took place in one of two European countries. The six publications consisted of four case reports, each containing one patient, one case series, involving twenty relevant cases, and a secondary report that pertained to one of the four case reports. In each of the six publications the authors suggest the care provider was a chiropractor and that each patient received chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine prior to developing symptoms suggestive of traumatic injury. In two of the four case reports contact with the principal researcher revealed that the care provider was not a chiropractor, as defined by the World Federation of Chiropractic. The authors of the other two case reports did not respond to my communications. In the case series, which involved twenty relevant cases, the principal researcher conceded that the term chiropractor had been inappropriately used and that his case series did not relate to chiropractors who had undergone appropriate formal training. The author of the secondary report, a British Medical Journal editor, conceded that he had misused the title chiropractor. Letters to editors were accepted and published by all four journals to which they were sent. To date one of the four journals has published a correction. CONCLUSION: The results of this year-long prospective review suggests that the words 'chiropractor' and 'chiropractic manipulation' are often used inappropriately by European biomedical researchers when reporting apparent associations between cervical spine manipulation and symptoms suggestive of traumatic injury. Furthermore, in those cases reported here, the spurious use of terminology seems to have passed through the peer-review process without correction. Additionally, these findings provide further preliminary evidence, beyond that already provided by Terrett, that the inappropriate use of the title 'chiropractor' and term 'chiropractic manipulation' may be a significant source of over-reporting of the link between the care provided by chiropractors and injury. Finally, editors of peer-reviewed journals were amenable to publishing 'letters to editors', and to a lesser extent 'corrections', when authors had inappropriately used the title 'chiropractor' and/or term 'chiropractic manipulation'.

Chiropractic maintenance care and quality of life of a patient presenting with chronic low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: To report on a 26-year-old female patient presenting with uncomplicated chronic low back pain who received chiropractic maintenance care using 2 quality of life outcome assessment instruments. OUTCOME MEASURES: Short-form (SF-36) subscales, Quality of Well-Being Scale, Visual Analog Scale, and number of tender vertebral spinous processes. RESULTS: After 9 months of care the SF-36 subscale scores showed improvement. The SF-36, although low before care, approached normal on 3 subscales and exceeded normal population values on 5 subscales after 9 months. The SF-36 physical and mental composite scores improved from mean baseline scores of 23.4 and 25.3 to 43.7 and 62.8, respectively, after 9 months of care. The Quality of Well-Being Scale scores improved from a mean pre-intervention score of 1.1 to a post-intervention score of 8.2. The Visual Analog Scale scores improved from a mean pre-intervention score of 8 to a post-intervention score of 1.5. The mean number of chiropractic vertebral subluxations, detected via palpation of spinous process tenderness, went from a pre-care mean of 6.5 to a post-care mean of 4. CONCLUSION: The patient appeared to experience improvement in quality of life while showing signs suggestive of improved spinal function. The relationship between indicators of vertebral subluxation and quality of life deserves further investigation using a research design that allows for exploration of possible causal relationships.

Is chiropractic evidence based? A pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: To calculate the proportion of care delivered in a chiropractic practice supported by good-quality clinical trials. DESIGN: Retrospective survey. METHODS: Data were collected from patient files relating to 180 consecutive patient visits in a suburban chiropractic practice in northern Spain. Each patient's presenting complaint was paired with the chiropractor's chosen primary intervention. Based on a literature review (Medline, Mantis, and nonautomated searches of local medical libraries), each presenting complaint-primary intervention pairing was categorized according to the level of supporting evidence as follows: Category I, intervention based on good quality clinical trial evidence; Category II, intervention based on poor-quality or no clinical trial evidence. To distinguish between good- and poor-quality clinical trials, studies were critically appraised and assigned quality scores. RESULTS: Of the 180 cases surveyed, 123 (68.3%) (95% CI, 61.5%-75.1%) were based on clinical trials of good methodologic quality (Category I). Only 57 (31.7%) (95% CI, 24.9%-38.5%) of the cases were based on poor-quality or no clinical trial evidence (Category II). CONCLUSIONS: When patients were used as the denominator, the majority of cases in a chiropractic practice were cared for with interventions based on evidence from good-quality, randomized clinical trials. When compared to the many other studies of similar design that have evaluated the extent to which different medical specialties are evidence based, chiropractic practice was found to have the highest proportion of care (68.3%) supported by good-quality experimental evidence.