Support Chiropractic Research!

Frank M. Painter

About Frank M. Painter

I was introduced to Chiro.Org in early 1996, where my friend Joe Garolis helped me learn HTML, the "mark-up language" for websites. We have been fortunate that journals like JMPT have given us permission to reproduce some early important articles in Full-Text format. Maintaining the Org website has been, and remains, my favorite hobby.

A Canadian Lawyer’s Rant

By |October 18, 2013|Editorial, Uncategorized|

A Canadian Lawyer’s Rant

The Chiro.Org Blog


SOURCE:   A Chiro.Org Editorial about Canadian Family Physcian 2013(Oct); 59 (10): 1052


After reading the first 2 paragraphs of this… what… letter to the editor? … I had some thoughts…

As an attorney and advocate for patient safety, I believe the authors of the Motherisk article that appeared in the August 2013 issue of Canadian Family Physician give an insufficient account of the risks that might be associated with chiropractic treatment of pregnant patients. [1]

Many chiropractors continue to base their treatments on the “detection” and “correction” of “subluxations,” ill-defined and unproven spinal lesions unknown to the medical profession. Nevertheless, chiropractors “adjust” these subluxations with any number of treatments, including manual therapy. Thus, the physician whose patient is receiving manual therapy from a chiropractor might be wholly unaware that the chiropractor is actually adjusting these nonexistent subluxations. These adjustments cannot effectively treat back pain or any other condition or disease.

Have we been hoist on our own petard?

I love how this author ramps up his misinformation campaign, stating that the subluxation is: first

ill-defined…then

unproven, and their final death stroke:

nonexistent.

Then, emboldened, he crows that:

“These adjustments cannot effectively treat back pain”

At this point, I am rolling in the aisles!

(more…)

Integration: A Conversation with the Neuroscience Institute

By |October 4, 2013|Integrative Care|

Integration: A Conversation with the Neuroscience Institute

The Chiro.Org Blog


SOURCE:   ACA News ~ October 2013

By Christina Acampora, DC


It’s happening! More and more we see examples of outreach from the medical community to doctors of chiropractic (DCs). In February 2013, the physicians and staff of the Neuroscience Institute and Comprehensive Spine Center at Advocate Illinois Masonic Medical Center invited all local DCs to a dinner and case presentation by Stephen Troyanovich, DC. The physicians who attended the presentation were seeking information and evidence on the proven health benefits of chiropractic. As someone who spends her days educating and assisting DCs with how to become more integrated, I am always intrigued as to what the mechanisms are behind this phenomenon. I asked for an interview, and, in keeping with its friendly February outreach, the Neuroscience Institute was more than accommodating in granting me time in June 2013.

In attendance:

• Kenneth Candido, MD, Pain Management
• John Song, MD, Neurosurgery
• Raina Gupta, MD, Neurology
• Emily Jakacki, director, Neurosciences Institute & Hospital Based Programs


 

DR. ACAMPORA: It seems that despite evidence based research illustrating the benefits of manipulation, chiropractic care continues to be a medical treatment of last resort or one into which patients often self-refer. Why do you think that is?

DR. CANDIDO: I think, by and large, people who do interventional pain medicine were always aware of [chiropractic as] the other side to the coin — in other words, alternative therapies — but we had very little appreciation or knowledge of these therapies during our training and early on in our practices. We tend to refer to the people we are most familiar with, to send our patients where we expect we’ll have easy access to them and have them referred back to us in a timely fashion. Chiropractic, while it’s something I have always been interested in, is something we don’t have immediate access to. We don’t have chiropractors on our faculty, in our pain practices or in our neurology or neurosurgery clinic. It’s been difficult to forge a bond or a relationship with people we don’t have immediately on our radar screens.

DR. SONG: For me, in my practice, it’s still about offering patients alternative therapies when they are not a surgical candidate, then letting them help guide their own care plan: chiropractic, physical therapy, acupuncture, yoga. It’s their choice.

(more…)

The Government Shut Down

By |October 2, 2013|Editorial|

The Government Shut Down

The Chiro.Org Blog


A Chiro.Org Editorial


I’ve got a bone to pick.

99+% of the materials we post on our website are first discovered on PubMed, the incredible search tool for the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM).

Their employees tirelessly add new peer-reviewed journal materials to this immense database, so that professionals LIKE US can keep abreast of the newest studies. That is the core of evidence-based progress.

So here’s my bone: Most of the employees from NLM have been sent home, because Congress is playing political hardball.

That means I can’t locate new journal materials for our edification.

Now I’m REALLY upset.

So, it’s time to consider what these political idiots are up to, and we all KNOW the game they play.

(more…)

Chiropractic And Osteoarthritis

By |September 27, 2013|Chiropractic Care, Degenerative Joint Disease, Evidence-based Medicine, Osteoarthritis|

Chiropractic And Osteoarthritis

The Chiro.Org Blog


SOURCE:   University of Maryland Medical Center



Although the vestiges of
medical harassment against chiropractic still resonate, and are now supplanted by fringe web sites which continue to ignore the body of peer-reviewed research supporting chiropractic care, the ice is slowly melting.

Below you can read comments from the University of Maryland Medical Center website , which openly acknowledges the benefits of chiropractic care for patients suffering from the pain of osteoarthritis.

There are many more articles like this @ our:

Degenerative Joint Disease and Chiropractic Page


 

(more…)

Outcomes of Usual Chiropractic; Harm (OUCH) Randomised Controlled Trial of Adverse Events

By |September 24, 2013|Adverse Events, Chiropractic Care, Randomized Controlled Trial|

Outcomes of Usual Chiropractic; Harm (OUCH) Randomised Controlled Trial of Adverse Events

The Chiro.Org Blog


SOURCE:   Spine 2013 (Sep 15); 38 (20): 1723-9 ~ FULL TEXT


Walker, Bruce F. DC, MPH, DrPH; Hebert, Jeffrey J. DC, PhD;
Stomski, Norman J. BHSc (hons), PhD; Clarke

Murdoch University School of Engineering and Information Technology,
Mathematics & Statistics,
Murdoch University Centre for Health,
Exercise and Sports Medicine,
University of Melbourne.


Study Design.   Blinded parallel-group randomized controlled trial.

Objective.   Establish the frequency and severity of adverse effects from short-term usual chiropractic treatment of the spine when compared with a sham treatment group.

Summary of Background Data.   Previous studies have demonstrated that adverse events occur during chiropractic treatment. However, as a result of design limitations in previous studies, particularly the lack of sham-controlled randomized trials, understanding of these adverse events and their relation with chiropractic treatment is suboptimal.

Methods.   We conducted a trial to examine the occurrence of adverse events resulting from chiropractic treatment. It was conducted across 12 chiropractic clinics in Perth, Western Australia. The participants comprised 183 adults, aged 20 to 85 years, with spinal pain. Ninety-two participants received individualized care consistent with the chiropractors’ usual treatment approach; 91 participants received a sham intervention. Each participant received 2 treatments.

Results.   Completed adverse questionnaires were returned by 94.5% of the participants after appointment 1 and 91.3% after appointment 2. Thirty-three percent of the sham group and 42% of the usual care group reported at least 1 adverse event. Common adverse events were:

increased pain (sham 29%; usual care 36%),
muscle stiffness (sham 29%; usual care 37%),
and headache (sham 17%; usual care 9%).

The relative risk (RR) was not significant for adverse event occurrence (RR = 1.24; 95% CI: 0.85–1.81),
occurrence of severe adverse events (RR = 1.9; 95% CI: 0.98–3.99),
adverse event onset (RR = 0.16; 95% CI: 0.02–1.34),
or adverse event duration (RR = 1.13; 95% CI: 0.59–2.18).
No serious adverse events were reported.

Conclusion.   A substantial proportion of (previously reported) adverse events following chiropractic treatment appear to result from natural history variation and nonspecific effects.


 

From the FULL TEXT Article

Introduction

Chiropractic therapy is commonly used to manage musculoskeletal conditions in high-income countries. [1, 2] The occurrence of adverse events resulting from chiropractic treatment is of considerable interest to chiropractors and the general public. Most adverse events associated with chiropractic treatment are mild, short lasting, and typical of musculoskeletal condition symptoms. [3–11] However, due to a lack of appropriately designed studies, particularly sham-controlled trials, there are differences in views about what constitutes a chiropractic treatment–related adverse event.

(more…)

Prognosis in Patients with Recent Onset Low Back Pain in Australian Primary Care

By |September 17, 2013|Low Back Pain, Prognosis|

Prognosis in Patients with Recent Onset Low Back Pain in Australian Primary Care: Inception Cohort Study

The Chiro.Org Blog


British Medical Journal 2008 (Jul 7); 337: a171


Henschke N, Maher CG, Refshauge KM, Herbert RD,
Cumming RG, Bleasel J, York J, Das A, McAuley JH.

Musculoskeletal Division,
The George Institute for International Health,
Sydney, Australia.


This BMJ study contradicts previous Clinical Practice Guidelines that suggest that recovery from an episode of recent onset low back pain is usually rapid and complete. Their findings with 973 consecutive primary care patients was that recovery was slow for most patients, and almost 1/3 of patients did not recover within one year (when following standard medical recommendations).

OBJECTIVE:   To estimate the one year prognosis and identify prognostic factors in cases of recent onset low back pain managed in primary care.

DESIGN:   Cohort study with one year follow-up.

SETTING:   Primary care clinics in Sydney, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS:   An inception cohort of 973 consecutive primary care patients (mean age 43.3, 54.8% men) with non-specific low back pain of less than two weeks’ duration recruited from the clinics of 170 general practitioners, physiotherapists, and chiropractors.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:   Participants completed a baseline questionnaire and were contacted six weeks, three months, and 12 months after the initial consultation. Recovery was assessed in terms of return to work, return to function, and resolution of pain. The association between potential prognostic factors and time to recovery was modelled with Cox regression.

(more…)