Support Chiropractic Research!

BLOG

Why You Might Want To Switch Browsers

By |January 29, 2014|Editorial|

Why You Might Want To Switch Browsers

The Chiro.Org Blog


SOURCE:   A Chiro.Org Editorial


When I first started working on the Chiro.Org website, I didn’t know anything about HTML (aka hyper text markup language), which is the code that generates every web page.

My friends @ the ORG encouraged me to adopt software programs (code generators) that would take my text and magically turn it into HTML.   What I learned rapidly was that those programs created more problems than solutions, mainly because they made tables look terrible.   Tables are the most difficult thing to format (all those columns and rows).

Because much of the serious materials I wanted to render for our site contained tables, I decided to learn HTML code, so that I would have absolute control over HOW it looked.

The leading browser at that time (1996) was Internet Explorer 5, and up until their most recent versions (IE 10 and 11) IE was awesome at displaying tables.   You had total control over border colors, border widths and other subtleties that made the work look unique AND interesting.

Below you will find 3 examples of my favorite section, the LINKS, represented by the 3 most-used browsers…IE11, FireFox and Google Chrome.

I will list the Chrome example first, since it is the only browser that still renders tables the way I actually designed them to look.

So, here we go. Check out the 3 examples, displayed below:

(more…)

Behavioral and Physical Treatments for Tension-type and Cervicogenic Headache

By |January 26, 2014|Chiropractic Care, Evidence-based Medicine, Headache|

Behavioral and Physical Treatments for Tension-type and Cervicogenic Headache

The Chiro.Org Blog


SOURCE:  Duke University Evidence-based Practice Center


Douglas C. McCrory, MD, MHSc, Donald B. Penzien, PhD,
Vic Hasselblad, PhD. Rebecca N. Gray, DPhil

Duke University Evidence-based Practice Center
Center for Clinical Health Policy Research
2200 W. Main Street, Suite 230
Durham, NC 27705


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

Tension-type headache and cervicogenic headache are two of the most common non-migraine headaches. Population-based studies suggest that a large proportion of adults experience mild and infrequent (once per month or less) tension-type headaches, and that the one-year prevalence of more frequent headaches (more than once per month) is 20%-30%; a smaller percentage of the population (roughly 3%) has been estimated to have chronic tension-type headache (180 days per year). Estimates of the prevalence of cervicogenic headache have varied considerably, due in large part to disagreements about the precise definition of the condition. A recent population-based study, which used the diagnostic criteria of the International Headache Society (IHS), found that 17.8% of subjects with frequent headache (5 days per month) fulfilled the criteria for cervicogenic headache; this was equivalent to a prevalence of 2.5% in the larger population. This agrees with an earlier clinic-based study which found that 14% of headache patients treated had cervicogenic headache.

The impact of tension-type headache on individuals and society appears to be significant. According to one population-based study, regular activities were limited during 38% of tension-type headache attacks, and 4% of respondents indicated that their headaches affected their attendance at work. Eighty-nine percent of tension-type headache sufferers reported that their headaches had negatively affected their relationships with friends, colleagues, and family. Little is known about the personal and societal impact of cervicogenic headache.

Nearly all patients with tension-type headache have used medications at one time or another to treat their headaches. But pharmacological treatments are not suitable for all patients, nor are they universally effective. Drug treatments may also produce undesired side effects. Partly for these reasons, significant interest has developed among both patients and health care providers in alternative treatments for tension-type headache, including behavioral and physical interventions. Cervicogenic headache, when diagnosed as such, is commonly treated with non-pharmacological interventions, especially physical treatments.

There are more articles like this @ our:

Headache and Chiropractic Page

(more…)

Changes in Vertebral Artery Blood Flow Following Various Head Positions and Cervical Spine Manipulation

By |January 25, 2014|Spinal Manipulation, Stroke, Vertebral Artery|

Changes in Vertebral Artery Blood Flow Following Various Head Positions and Cervical Spine Manipulation

The Chiro.Org Blog


SOURCE:   J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2014 (Jan);   37 (1):   22–31


Jairus J. Quesnele, DC, John J. Triano, DC, PhD,
Michael D. Noseworthy, PhD, Greg D. Wells, PhD

Chiropractor, Private Practice,
Division of Graduate Studies, Clinical Sciences,
Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


OBJECTIVE:   The objective of the study was to investigate the cerebrovascular hemodynamic response of cervical spine positions including rotation and cervical spine manipulation in vivo using magnetic resonance imaging technology on the vertebral artery (VA).

METHODS:   This pilot study was conducted as a blinded examiner cohort with 4 randomized clinical tasks. Ten healthy male participants aged 24 to 30 years (mean, 26.8 years) volunteered to participate in the study. None of the participants had a history of disabling neck, arm, or headache pain within the last 6 months. They did not have any current or history of neurologic symptoms. In a neutral head position, physiologic measures of VA blood flow and velocity at the C1-2 spinal level were obtained using phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging after 3 different head positions and a chiropractic upper cervical spinal manipulation. A total of 30 flow-encoded phase-contrast images were collected over the cardiac cycle, in each of the 4 conditions, and were used to provide a blood flow profile for one complete cardiac cycle. Differences between flow (in milliliters per second) and velocity (in centimeters per second) variables were evaluated using repeated-measures analysis of variance.

RESULTS:   The side-to-side difference between ipsilateral and contralateral VA velocities was not significant for either velocities (P = .14) or flows (P = .19) throughout the conditions. There were no other interactions or trends toward a difference for any of the other blood flow or velocity variables.

There are more articles like this @ our:

Stroke and Chiropractic Page

(more…)

Medical Management of Pediatric and Non-Musculoskeletal Conditions by Spinal Manipulation

By |January 23, 2014|Chiropractic Care, Non-Musculoskeletal Conditions, Pediatrics, Visceral Disease|

Medical Management of Pediatric and Non-Musculoskeletal Conditions by Spinal Manipulation

The Chiro.Org Blog


Chiropractic Journal of Australia 2013 (Dec);   43 (4):   131–136 ~ FULL TEXT


Peter L. Rome, D.C.

Melbourne, Australia


Thanks to Dr. Rolf Peters, editor of the Chiropractic Journal of Australia for permission to republish this Full Text article, exclusively at Chiro.Org!

Considering the unpleasant fallout from the Simon Singh Case, this article sheds a unique, new perspective on manipulative care for non-musculoskeletal conditions.


The Abstract:   There is a well established precedent by medical doctors, particularly in Europe, of managing infant, paediatric and other patients for so-called organic conditions by spinal manipulation.   There are also claims that chiropractic should not be involved with this form of management for so-called visceral disorders because it does not quite meet the current orthodox theories.   This seems contradictory if not hypocritical when there is noted evidence in the medical literature itself of not only the rationale supporting these concepts, but evidence of medical doctors carrying out the same procedures for the same purpose on the same conditions.

Index terms: (MeSH):   chiropractic; manipulation, chiropractic; manipulation, orthopedic; manipulation, musculoskeletal; manipulation, spinal; pediatrics; evidence based medicine. (other): medical manipulative therapy.


 

From the Full-Text Article:

Introduction

Some have questioned the hypotheses justifying chiropractic involvement in the management of paediatric patients, as well as those with so-called visceral conditions. [1-4]   This topic was raised recently in a television program by Demasi. [5]

It is acknowledged that chiropractic constructs have been outside the traditional or orthodox models of understanding. However, there is a major contradiction regarding manipulative management of visceral and paediatric care due to the adoption of those very concepts by other areas of medicine – namely manipulative medicine. [6-9]

In particular, European medical doctors have published refereed papers on these very topics involving spinal manipulation in medical journals and medical textbooks for some decades. [10] (see Table 1)   In an apparent contradictory development, it is primarily English language medical authors and other sources that seem to have attracted critics who direct their reservations at the principles espoused by chiropractors, but not to their European medical colleagues who are proponents of spinal manipulation. [11]   It is also curious that osteopathic manipulative therapy does not appear to attract the same degree of debate and reservations despite the similarities.

There are at least three medical textbooks which include the topics of paediatric manipulative care and the manipulative management of visceral disorders. [6-8]   One such medical text is totally devoted to paediatric manual therapy. [6]


INFANTS

There are more articles like this @ our:

Pediatrics and Chiropractic Page

(more…)

The Efficacy of Spinal Manipulation, Amitriptyline and the Combination of Both Therapies for the Prophylaxis of Migraine Headache

By |January 21, 2014|Chiropractic Care, Evidence-based Medicine, Headache, Migraine|

The Efficacy of Spinal Manipulation, Amitriptyline and the Combination of Both Therapies for the Prophylaxis of Migraine Headache

The Chiro.Org Blog


SOURCE:   J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1998 (Oct);   21 (8):   511–519


Nelson CF, Bronfort G, Evans R, Boline P,
Goldsmith C, Anderson AV

Center for Clinical Studies,
Northwestern College of Chiropractic,
Bloomington, MN 55431, USA.


BACKGROUND:   Migraine headache affects approximately 11 million adults in the United States. Spinal manipulation is a common alternative therapy for headaches, but its efficacy compared with standard medical therapies is unknown.

OBJECTIVE:   To measure the relative efficacy of amitriptyline, spinal manipulation and the combination of both therapies for the prophylaxis of migraine headache.

DESIGN:   A prospective, randomized, parallel-group comparison. After a 4-wk baseline period, patients were randomly assigned to 8 wk of treatment, after which there was a 4-wk follow-up period.

SETTING:   Chiropractic college outpatient clinic.

PARTICIPANTS:   A total of 218 patients with the diagnosis of migraine headache.

INTERVENTIONS:   An 8-wk course of therapy with spinal manipulation, amitriptyline or a combination of the two treatments.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:   A headache index score derived from a daily headache pain diary during the last 4 wk of treatment and during the 4-wk follow-up period.

There are more articles like this @ our:

Headache and Chiropractic Page

(more…)

Spinal Manipulation vs. Amitriptyline for the Treatment of Chronic Tension-type Headaches: A Randomized Clinical Trial

By |January 20, 2014|Chiropractic Care, Evidence-based Medicine, Headache|

Spinal Manipulation vs. Amitriptyline for the Treatment of Chronic Tension-type Headaches: A Randomized Clinical Trial

The Chiro.Org Blog


SOURCE:   J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1995 (Mar); 18 (3): 148–154


Patrick Boline, DC, Kassem Kassak, MPH, PhD,
Gert Bronfort, DC, PhD, Craig Nelson, DC,
A.V. Anderson, DC, MD

Funding was provided by:
Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research (FCER)


This article is reprinted with the permission of National College of Chiropractic and JMPT.   Our special thanks to the Editor, Dr. Dana Lawrence, D.C. for permission to reproduce this article exclusively at Chiro.Org


This study compared the effects of spinal manipulation and pharmaceutical treatments for chronic tension headaches. Four weeks following the cessation of treatment, the pharmaceutical group demonstrated no improvement from the baseline. In the spinal manipulation group, headache intensity dropped 32 percent; frequency dropped 42 percent; and there was an overall improvement of 16 percent in functional health status.


Perhaps the best known clinical trial on chiropractic and Tension-type Headaches was the Boline et al study, which compared chiropractic care to the medication amitriptyline. These investigators found that one month of chiropractic care (approximately 2 visits per week) was more effective than amitriptyline for long-term relief of headache pain.

During the treatment phase of the trial, pain relief among those treated with medication was roughly comparable to the chiropractic group. But chiropractic patients maintained their levels of improvement after treatment was discontinued, while those taking medication returned to pretreatment status in an average of 4 weeks after its discontinuation.
(Thanks to Daniel Redwood, DC)

This study compared the effects of spinal manipulation and pharmaceutical treatments for chronic tension headaches. Four weeks following the cessation of treatment, the pharmaceutical group demonstrated no improvement from the baseline. In the spinal manipulation group, headache intensity dropped 32 percent;   frequency dropped 42 percent;   and there was an overall improvement of 16 percent in functional health status.

Background:   In the United States headaches are responsible for more than 18 million office visits annually, and are the most common reason for using over-the-counter medications. It is estimated that 156 million work days are lost each year because of headaches, translating to $25 billion in lost productivity. Of the categories of chronic headaches, tension-type headaches are most common.

Headaches are commonly treated by chiropractic doctors with spinal manipulation, and several studies have reported good outcomes. These trials however, suffered from either a lack of a control group or inadequate statistical power. The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of spinal manipulation and a common pharmaceutical treatment (amitriptyline) for chronic tension-type headache.

Methods:   One-hundred-fifty patients between the ages of 18 and 70 were randomly assigned to receive either six weeks of chiropractic or pharmaceutical treatment which was preceded by a two week baseline period and included a four week, post-treatment follow up period. Main outcome measures were change in patient-reported daily headache intensity, weekly headache frequency, over-the-counter medication usage, and functional health status using the SF-36 Health Survey.

Results:   During the treatment period both groups improved at very similar rates in all primary outcomes. Four weeks following the cessation of treatment patients who received spinal manipulative therapy showed a reduction of 32% in headache intensity, 42% in headache frequency, 30% in over-the-counter medication usage and 16% in functional health status. By comparison, patients that received amitriptyline showed no improvement or a slight worsening from baseline values in the same outcome measures. The group differences at four week post-treatment follow up were considered to be clinically important and statistically significant. There is further need to assess the effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy beyond four weeks and to compare spinal manipulative therapy to an appropriate placebo such as sham manipulation in future clinical trials.

Conclusion:   The results of this study show that spinal manipulative therapy is an effective treatment for tension headaches. Amitriptyline was slightly more effective in reducing pain by the end of the treatment period, but was associated with more side effects. Four weeks after cessation of treatment however, patients who received spinal manipulation experienced a sustained therapeutic benefit in all major outcomes in contrast to the amitriptyline group, who reverted to baseline values. The sustained theraputic benefit associated with spial manipulation seemed to result in a decreased need for over-the-counter medication. There is a need to assess the effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy beyond four weeks and to compare SMT to an appropriate placebo such as sham manipulation in future clinical trials.   (see the Problem with Placebo/Shams Page for other issues associated with sham treatments provided in previous studies.)

Key words:   clinical guidelines; low back pain; evidence based medicine; systematic reviews


 

From the Full-Text Article:

INTRODUCTION

There are more articles like this @ our:

Headache and Chiropractic Page

(more…)