Support Chiropractic Research!

BLOG

The Placebo, the Sensory Trick and Chiropractic

By |September 27, 2012|Chiropractic Care, Placebo, Spinal Manipulation|

The Placebo, the Sensory Trick and Chiropractic

The Chiro.Org Blog


SOURCE:   Chiropractic J. Australia 2004 (Jun); 34 (2): 58–62


Brian S. Budgell, DC, MSc

School of Health Sciences,
Faculty of Medicine,
Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan


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


Background:   As standards for randomised, controlled, clinical trials in medicine evolve, there is debate about whether the RCT model of investigation is appropriate for chiropractic and other forms of so-called “complementary and alternative medicine.” There may be some question as to whether the use of placebo interventions can be justified ethically and scientifically given that experimental treatments must eventually compete in a marketplace where there is often already a clinical alternative which is more effective than placebo. Beyond these concerns, design of an appropriate placebo for chiropractic trials is particularly problematic since the therapeutic component of overall chiropractic treatment may be difficult to isolate.

Objective:   To compare placebo interventions in current use in chiropractic clinical research with simple somatic stimuli that produce significant physiological effects in a selected group of patients (those suffering from dystonia).

Methods:   A literature search was made using MEDLINE, with the key words dystonia, sensory trick and geste antagoniste. Articles were reviewed for descriptions of these stimuli. The stimuli were compared, in terms of site and modality, with placebo interventions used in recent chiropractic clinical trials.

Results:   Stimuli used as placebo procedures in recent chiropractic clinical trials are quite similar, in terms of site and modality, to the “sensory tricks” that either cause substantial temporary relief, or, alternatively, provocation of symptoms in dystonic patients.

Conclusions:   Caution should be used in assuming that control (placebo) procedures used in chiropractic clinical trials—procedures that involve physical contact or positioning of patients—lack specific effects on neuromusculoskeletal symptomatology.

INDEX TERMS: (MeSH)   PLACEBO, SENSORY TRICK, GESTE ANTAGONISTE, CHIROPRACTIC

You may also want to refer to our:

The Problem with Placebos/Shams Page

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

In common parlance, the placebo may be thought of as a sham treatment given to placate the gullible or troublesome patient. In medical practice, it is more often thought of as medication, most often a pill, which has no specific action against the complaint for which it is prescribed. More recently, standards for design of clinical research have demanded more rigorous definition of what has been called “the imaginary term in medicine’s algebraic formula.” [1]

For purposes of pharmacological research, it is possible to select placebo substances that appear, with a very high level of probability, to be physiologically inert in humans, or at least to have no specific action against a disorder that is the target of investigation. Nonetheless, various studies have indicated that such supposedly inert substances may be associated with impressive levels of therapeutic effects, sometimes rivalling the medications, which are known to have specific pharmacological effects. [2]

(more…)

How Deliciously Unscientific! Modern Medicine Embraces Intuition

By |September 26, 2012|News|

How Deliciously Unscientific!
Modern Medicine Embraces Intuition

The Chiro.Org Blog


SOURCE: MedPage Today ~ Sept. 25, 2012


By Nancy Walsh, Staff Writer

Reviewed by Dori F. Zaleznik, MD; Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston


 

 

 

     ‘Gut Feelings’ Matter in Diagnosis of Kids’ Infections


This new MedPage review advises medical doctors that:   Physicians should pay attention to their “gut feeling” that something may be seriously wrong when assessing a child with an infectious disease — even if the clinical appearance is reassuring. [1]

Among 3,369 children whose primary care evaluation did not suggest a serious illness, six (0.2%) ultimately were admitted to the hospital with a severe infection, according to Ann Van den Bruel, MD, PhD, of the Radcliffe Observatory Quarter in Oxford, England, and colleagues.

The clinician’s gut feeling that the child was seriously ill considerably increased the chance that a severe infection was present, with a likelihood ratio of 25.5 (95% CI 7.9 to 82), and heeding the feeling might have prevented two cases from being overlooked (33%, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.75), the researchers reported online in BMJ.

Considerable research has focused on developing tools for clinical prediction in acutely ill children, including symptoms, vital signs, and laboratory tests, but primary care physicians often see children before the full clinical picture has developed — and sometimes report relying on intuition that a potentially serious problem exists even though they’re unsure why.

Moreover, a systematic review recently determined that such a gut feeling had considerable diagnostic significance. [1]


The most remarkable findings in this study were: (more…)

A Replication of the Ernst Study“Adverse Effects of Spinal Manipulation: A Systematic Review”

By |September 24, 2012|Iatrogenic Injury, Spinal Manipulation|

A Replication of the Ernst Study
“Adverse Effects of Spinal Manipulation: A Systematic Review”

The Chiro.Org Blog


SOURCE:   Chiropractic & Manual Therapies 2012 (Sep 21)


Peter J. Tuchin, GradDipChiro, DipOHS, PhD

Macquarie University, Bld E5A Rm 355,
Waterloo Rd, North Ryde,
Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia


Objective   To assess the significance of adverse events after spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) by replicating and critically reviewing a paper commonly cited when reviewing adverse events of SMT as reported by Ernst. (J R Soc Med. 2007 (Jul); 100 (7): 330-338).

Method   Replication of a 2007 Ernest paper to compare the details recorded in this paper to the original source material. Specific items that were assessed included the time lapse between treatment and the adverse event, and the recording of other significant risk factors such as diabetes, hyperhomocysteinemia, use of oral contraceptive pill, any history of hypertension, atherosclerosis and migraine.

Results   The review of the 32 papers discussed by Ernst found numerous errors or inconsistencies from the original case reports and case series. These errors included alteration of the age or sex of the patient, and omission or misrepresentation of the long term response of the patient to the adverse event. Other errors included incorrectly assigning spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) as chiropractic treatment when it had been reported in the original paper as delivered by a non-chiropractic provider (e.g. Physician).

The original case reports often omitted to record the time lapse between treatment and the adverse event, and other significant clinical or risk factors. The country of origin of the original paper was also overlooked, which is significant as chiropractic is not legislated in many countries. In 21 of the cases reported by Ernest to be chiropractic treatment, 11 were from countries where chiropractic is not legislated.

Conclusion   The number of errors or omissions in the 2007 Ernest paper, reduce the validity of the study and the reported conclusions. The omissions of potential risk factors and the timeline between the adverse event and SMT could be significant confounding factors. Greater care is also needed to distinguish between chiropractors and other health practitioners when reviewing the application of SMT and related adverse effects.


 

The Full-Text Article:

Introduction

The use of a treatment by health care providers requires examination of the evidence of effectiveness and assessment of the evidence for risks or adverse events (AE) caused by the treatment [1]. Spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) has strong evidence for treatment of low back pain, neck pain, headache and migraine [2-6]. This is supported by numerous systematic reviews of a large number of randomized controlled trials [7-10] (more…)

The Toxic Home

By |September 20, 2012|Chemical Sensitivity, Environmental Sensitivity, Volatile Organic Compounds|

The Toxic Home

The Chiro.Org Blog


SOURCE:   Dynamic Chiropractic

By Claudia Anrig, DC


No one can deny that industrialization has created quite a few conveniences. But with these modern-day conveniences have come modern-day health hazards – the worst being those that are potentially toxic to ourselves and our children.

Let’s learn more about the toxic dangers in your home and a few common household items that may be putting you and your family at risk.

Off-Gassing

This word was first used in 1966 to describe the release of gaseous chemicals from a solid. For instance, the Construction Dictionary defines “off-gassing” as the release of airborne particulates, often from installed construction materials such as carpeting, cabinetry, or paint that can cause allergic reactions and other health problems in building occupants. Off-gassing, while commonly attributed to carpeting, can be caused by several unexpected sources. [1]

The top 10 sources of off-gassing in order of concern include common household items/products:
mattresses, stains and varnishes, carpet, insulation, flooring materials (vinyl, glues, finishes, adhesives), countertops, cabinets, particle board, paint strippers and cleaning supplies.
[2] (more…)

Biomechanical Lesion: A Better Diagnostic Term for the Profession

By |September 19, 2012|Philosophy|

By John R. Bomar, DC
Source Dynamic Chiropractic

For those who may not be aware, the World Health Organization’s latest revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) uses a new primary term to describe the major condition treated by chiropractic physicians.

The new term is biomechanical lesion and the code is M99, with decimal designations used for various sections of the body – e.g., M99.01, Biomechanical lesion, cervical region. It is thought that the ICD-10 system will be required sometime in 2014.

More than a few chiropractors, myself included, feel this change in nomenclature is much-needed. The present term, non-allopathic lesion (739 series), completely fails to communicate the nature of the problems we address daily in our offices, and the term non-allopathic implies the concept of “non-medical,” as if what we treat has little to do with a person’s health. Such a maldescriptive phrase does nothing to clear up the confusion and misconceptions associated with our work – misconstructions that only contribute to the apprehension and fear many feel when considering our profession.

Such vague and indistinct terminology also discourages appropriate referral from other health care providers. Important also is the current void in understanding that exists between chiropractic providers and the insurance industry. Complicating all this is the insistence by some in our profession that others conform to our definition of the word subluxation, which is in conflict with the accepted medical definition. The natural reaction in others to such uncertainty, obscurity, confusion and doubt is a hesitancy to involve oneself in such dealings, further isolating our profession and hindering growth. (more…)

ACA Advocates for N.M. Chiropractic Physicians’ Right to Self-Determination

By |September 19, 2012|Scope of Practice|

Source The ACA

The American Chiropractic Association (ACA) today(September 13th, 2012)  filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in the New Mexico Court of Appeals, supporting the expertise of chiropractic physicians in that state and their right to self-determination.

ACA was compelled to file the brief after the International Chiropractors Association (ICA) joined forces with the New Mexico Board of Pharmacy and the New Mexico Medical Board in a December 2011 memorandum to the court, requesting a halt to efforts by the New Mexico Board of Chiropractic Examiners to create an advanced practice training and certification program for chiropractic physicians.

In making its argument in favor of allowing New Mexico chiropractic physicians to chart their own course in this matter, ACA’s brief informs the court about the extensive educational background and training that chiropractic physicians receive today from accredited U.S. chiropractic colleges.

The brief also points out that ACA is the nation’s largest and preeminent chiropractic professional association, and that its long-established policy has been to recognize that local doctors are best equipped to determine matters of scope.

“It is ACA’s opinion that the New Mexico Board of Chiropractic Examiners should be given the same respect as other state boards and allowed to determine what is best for chiropractic physicians and patients in that state. We object in particular to actions by the ICA, as well as the state’s pharmacy and medical boards, to interfere with the will of chiropractic physicians in New Mexico and the needs of their patients,” said ACA President Keith Overland, DC.

It is uncertain at this time when the court will make its final ruling on the issue.