Support Chiropractic Research!

BLOG

Chiropractic Neurology: Breakthrough Treatment or Placebo?

By |August 22, 2012|Neurology|

Further to the discussions of chiropractic specialties, this piece appeared recently on Nightline. You can find a video of this segment on the Nightline Website. A previous chiro org blog entry shows an interview with Dr Carrick regarding his treatment of hockey player Sydney Crosby for concussion.

 

Source ABC Nightline
August 17, 2012

Will Arlen has a traumatic brain injury and is so sensitive to light that he wears sunglasses all the time.

The 17-year-old describes his migraines as like a knife stabbing his brain. His short term memory is shot. He can barely stand up on his own or move his left arm.

The teenager from Exeter, N.H., said his symptoms developed after an illegal hit during a lacrosse game gave him a concussion so severe that it sent him into an 8-month downward spiral. His father, Larry Arlen, said his son used to be an active, outgoing, straight-A student, but they have had to pull him out of school because of his condition.

Will, however, believes Ted Carrick, a chiropractor who specializes in the brain, holds the key to a miraculous cure for his condition.

Carrick, who has 28 clinics worldwide and sees patients all over the world, practices a therapy he calls chiropractic neurology, a treatment he has been perfecting for 33 years. He rarely grants interviews, but allowed “Nightline” to be the first American television network to watch the treatment unfold at his clinic at Life University in Marietta, Ga.

He said his treatment involves re-activating pathways in the brain, what scientific circles refer to as neuro-plasticity, by simulating other parts of the body. He is considered the main architect of chiropractic neuology because he pioneered several of the methods used, in part by combining treatments that already exist, as well as developing new treatments. (more…)

Texas: Chiropractic board pulls proposed rule to create specialties in nutrition, neurology

By |August 21, 2012|Scope of Practice|

From an article in  Statesman.com August 19th, 2012

The Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners has said it will re-examine proposals to allow chiropractors to call themselves specialists in nutrition and neurology after hearing complaints from dietitians and physicians.

At a meeting in Austin on Thursday, the board heard from registered dietitians urging it to withdraw a proposal to create a specialty in chiropractic nutrition. The board also received letters from the Texas Medical Association and physicians strongly objecting to a chiropractic neurology specialty.

The board did not meet beforehand with the affected groups, as it is required to do, representatives of those groups said. Further, they have complained that the specialist training would be too little or vague and would confuse and potentially endanger the public. (more…)

Symptomatic Reactions, Clinical Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction

By |August 16, 2012|Patient Satisfaction, Safety, Upper Cervical Adjusting|

Symptomatic Reactions, Clinical Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction Associated with Upper Cervical Chiropractic Care: A Prospective, Multicenter, Cohort Study

The Chiro.Org Blog


SOURCE:   BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011 (Oct 5); 12: 219


Kirk Eriksen, Roderic P Rochester, and Eric L Hurwitz

Chiropractic Health Institute, PC, Clinic Director, 2500 Flowers Chapel Road, Dothan, AL 36305, USA. drkirke@graceba.net


BACKGROUND:   Observational studies have previously shown that adverse events following manipulation to the neck and/or back are relatively common, although these reactions tend to be mild in intensity and self-limiting. However, no prospective study has examined the incidence of adverse reactions following spinal adjustments using upper cervical techniques, and the impact of this care on clinical outcomes.

METHODS:   Consecutive new patients from the offices of 83 chiropractors were recruited for this practice-based study. Clinical outcome measures included:

  1. Neck pain disability index (100-point scale),
  2. Oswestry back pain index (100-point scale),
  3. 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS) for neck, headache, midback, and low back pain,
  4. treatment satisfaction, and
  5. Symptomatic Reactions (SR).

Data were collected at baseline, and after approximately 2 weeks of care. A patient reaching sub-clinical status for pain and disability was defined as a follow-up score <3 NRS and <10%, respectively. A SR is defined as a new complaint not present at baseline or a worsening of the presenting complaint by >30% based on an 11-point numeric rating scale occurring <24 hours after any upper cervical procedure.

RESULTS:   A total of 1,090 patients completed the study having 4,920 (4.5 per patient) office visits requiring 2,653 (2.4 per patient) upper cervical adjustments over 17 days. Three hundred thirty- eight (31.0%) patients had SRs meeting the accepted definition. Intense SR (NRS ≥8) occurred in 56 patients (5.1%). Outcome assessments were significantly improved for neck pain and disability, headache, mid-back pain, as well as lower back pain and disability (p <0.001) following care with a high level (mean = 9.1/10) of patient satisfaction. The 83 chiropractors administered >5 million career upper cervical adjustments without a reported incidence of serious adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS:   Upper cervical chiropractic care may have a fairly common occurrence of mild intensity SRs short in duration (<24 hours), and rarely severe in intensity; however, outcome assessments were significantly improved with less than 3 weeks of care with a high level of patient satisfaction. Although our findings need to be confirmed in subsequent randomized studies for definitive risk-benefit assessment, the preliminary data shows that the benefits of upper cervical chiropractic care may outweigh the potential risks.


 

From the FULL TEXT Article:

Discussion: (more…)

Value of Chiropractic Services at an On-site Health Center

By |August 14, 2012|Chiropractic Care, Cost-Effectiveness|

Value of Chiropractic Services at an On-site Health Center

The Chiro.Org Blog


SOURCE:   J Occup Environ Med. 2012 (Aug); 54 (8): 917-921 ~ FULL TEXT


Curt A. Krause, DC; Lisa Kaspin, PhD; Kathleen M. Gorman, MPH; Ross M. Miller, MD, MPH

From the Cerner Healthe Clinic (Dr Krause), Kansas City, MO; Cerner LifeSciences Consulting (Dr Kaspinand and Ms Gorman), Beverly Hills, CA; and Cerner Employer Services (Dr Miller), Cerner Corporation, Beverly Hills, CA.


OBJECTIVE:   Chiropractic care offered at an on-site health center could reduce the economic and clinical burden of musculoskeletal conditions.

METHODS:   A retrospective claims analysis and clinical evaluation were performed to assess the influence of on-site chiropractic services on health care utilization and outcomes.

RESULTS:   Patients treated off-site were significantly more likely to have physical therapy (P < 0.0001) and outpatient visits (P < 0.0001). In addition, the average total number of health care visits, radiology procedures, and musculoskeletal medication use per patient with each event were significantly higher for the off-site group (all P < 0.0001). Last, headache, neck pain, and low back pain-functional status improved significantly (all P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS:   These results suggest that chiropractic services offered at on-site health centers may promote lower utilization of certain health care services, while improving musculoskeletal function.

There are many similar studies in our:

Cost-Effectiveness of Chiropractic Page


 

From the FULL TEXT Article:

Discussion

Although previous research has demonstrated the benefits of chiropractic care, to the best of our knowledge this study is the first to evaluate its impact when offered at an on-site health center. [6–10, 14–17] Given the convenience and quality of care provided by on-site health centers, it was hypothesized that on-site chiropractic care would be more beneficial than off-site clinic care. Despite some limitations that may have weakened the conclusions, the findings suggest on-site chiropractic services are associated with lower health care utilization of certain services and improved functional status of musculoskeletal conditions. (more…)

The Nordic Maintenance Care Program: Maintenance Care – What Happens During the Consultation? Observations andPatient Questionnaires

By |August 11, 2012|Chiropractic Care, Maintenance Care, Spinal Manipulation|

The Nordic Maintenance Care Program: Maintenance Care –
What Happens During the Consultation? Observations and Patient Questionnaires

The Chiro.Org Blog


Chiropractic & Manual Therapies 2012 (Aug 10); 20 (1): 25


Marita Bringsli, Aurora Berntzen, Dorthe B Olsen, Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde and Lise Hestbaek


Background:   Because maintenance care (MC) is frequently used by chiropractors in the management of patients with back pain, it is necessary to define the rationale, frequency and indications for MC consultations, and the contents of such consultations. The objectives of the two studies described in this article are: i) to determine the typical spacing between visits for MC patients and to compare MC and non-MC patients, ii) to describe the content of the MC consultation and to compare MC and non-MC patients and iii) to investigate the purposes of the MC program.

Method:   In two studies, chiropractors who accepted the MC paradigm were invited to assist with the data collection. In study 1, patients seen by seven different chiropractors were observed by two chiropractic students. They noted the contents of the observed consultations. In study 2, ten chiropractors invited their MC patients to participate in an anonymous survey. Participants filled in a one page questionnaire containing questions on their view of the purposes and contents of their MC consultations. In addition, information was obtained on the duration between appointments in both studies.

Results:   There were 178 valid records in study 1, and in study 2 the number of questionnaires received was 373. The time interval between MC visits was close to nine weeks and for non-MC consultations it was two weeks. The content of the consultations in study 1 was similar for MC and non-MC patients with treatment being the most time-consuming element followed by history taking/examination. MC consultations were slightly shorter than non-MC consultations. In study 2, the most common activities reported to have taken place were history taking and manipulative therapy. The most commonly reported purposes were to prevent recurring problems, to maintain best possible function and /or to stay as pain free as possible.

Conclusions:   The results from these two studies indicate that MC consultations commonly take place with around two months intervals, and that history taking, examination and treatment are as important components in MC as in non-MC consultations. Further, the results demonstrate that most patients consider the goal to be secondary or tertiary prevention.


 

The FULL TEXT Article

Background:

Present level of evidence

Maintenance care (MC) is a concept well known among chiropractors, although it is poorly defined and rarely studied. A literature review published in 1996 concluded that there was no scientific evidence to support the claim that MC improves health status and recommended that a series of research actions should be taken [1]. (more…)

What is Different About Spinal Pain?

By |August 7, 2012|Chronic Pain, Pain Relief, Spinal Manipulation|

What is Different About Spinal Pain?

The Chiro.Org Blog


SOURCE:   Chiropractic & Manual Therapies 2012 (Jul 5); 20 (1): 22 ~ FULL TEXT


Howard Vernon, DC, PhD

Division of Research,
Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College,
Toronto, ON, Canada.
hvernon@cmcc.ca


BACKGROUND:   The mechanisms subserving deep spinal pain have not been studied as well as those related to the skin and to deep pain in peripheral limb structures. The clinical phenomenology of deep spinal pain presents unique features which call for investigations which can explain these at a mechanistic level.

METHODS:   Targeted searches of the literature were conducted and the relevant materials reviewed for applicability to the thesis that deep spinal pain is distinctive from deep pain in the peripheral limb structures. Topics related to the neuroanatomy and neurophysiology of deep spinal pain were organized in a hierarchical format for content review.

RESULTS:   Since the 1980’s the innervation characteristics of the spinal joints and deep muscles have been elucidated. Afferent connections subserving pain have been identified in a distinctive somatotopic organization within the spinal cord whereby afferents from deep spinal tissues terminate primarily in the lateral dorsal horn while those from deep peripheral tissues terminate primarily in the medial dorsal horn. Mechanisms underlying the clinical phenomena of referred pain from the spine, poor localization of spinal pain and chronicity of spine pain have emerged from the literature and are reviewed here, especially emphasizing the somatotopic organization and hyperconvergence of dorsal horn “low back (spinal) neurons”. Taken together, these findings provide preliminary support for the hypothesis that deep spine pain is different from deep pain arising from peripheral limb structures.

CONCLUSIONS:   This thesis addressed the question “what is different about spine pain?” Neuroanatomic and neurophysiologic findings from studies in the last twenty years provide preliminary support for the thesis that deep spine pain is different from deep pain arising from peripheral limb structures.


 

From the FULL TEXT Article:

Introduction

Case scenario

A 45-year old male presents with chronic lumbosacral pain and some pain in the posterior thigh. Examination rules out any overt disc herniation with radiculopathy. X-rays show no spinal pathology.

Basic differential diagnosis options:

  1. Back pain with referred leg pain (one problem with two clinical manifestations: one primary, the other secondary)
  2. Back pain and an associated, but not causally connected problem in the posterior thigh (two separate problems)Both of these options share an acceptable clinical logic; their distinction would be made on the basis of further history and examination for signs that were consistent with one or the other explanation.However, there is a third option to consider:
  3. Primary problem in the thigh referring pain to the back (reverse circumstances to #1).

It is my contention that this third option does not enjoy the same “clinical logicalness” as the first two, and would very likely not even be entertained as a possibility.

In this paper, I would like to explore why this is so. The answer that compels itself is rather simple, but not widely accepted to date: pain from deep spinal tissues is different than pain from deep tissues of the peripheral somatic structures (upper and lower limbs as well as the facial region), and the nature of referred pain from these structures is one of the critical distinctions.ms, especially at the level of the periphery and the spinal cord [122-124]. However, the degree to which any of the vast amount of work on animal models correlates directly with human clinical phenomena is an ongoing challenge. In the present report, a confluence of evidence from animal and human studies is presented which appear to provide reasonable support for the primary thesis.

A second challenge lies in the circumstances for which a claim of distinction between spinal vs peripheral pain is tenable. In the discussion of referred pain, above, mention was made of various clinical circumstances where our thesis ought not be applied or where such application would be challenging. This situation reflects the complexities inherent in the topic of deep pain as well as the limitations of applying any one theoretical mechanism to that problem and to the problem of chronic pain in general.

The distinction which was already made between somatic referred pain and radicular or neuropathic pain from spinal or peripheral neural entrapment syndromes should not pose a challenge to my thesis as these are clearly distinct pain mechanisms.

Pain behaviors in syndromes which are based on disturbed central pain mechanisms such as in central post-stroke pain and in fibromyalgia pose a modest challenge to my thesis. In these syndromes, normal pain mechanisms at the level of the periphery and spinal cord are substantially altered by centrally-generated mechanisms, making the kind of comparisons between deep spinal and peripheral pain mechanisms which we discuss in this thesis much more problematic [125, 126]. Pain referral patterns in these syndromes may not adhere to the strict distinctions we have drawn here between spinal and peripheral limb sources. However, these syndromes are relatively easy to diagnose, so that the clinician is likely to be aware that this is the basis for non-conventional pain referral patterns (especially proximal referral from the limbs, which may be found in some fibromyalgia patients).

The greatest challenge to my thesis appears to arise in regard to the phenomenon of myofascial trigger points (MTrP) either as singular entities or as part of what may be diagnosed as ‘regional myofascial pain syndrome’. Here, we may be required to distinguish between “spread of pain” vs referral of pain. MTrP’s on the torso and in the peripheral limb muscles appear to generate both spread of local pain as well as referral of pain, to distant sites [46, 47, 127-130]. “Spread” of pain is generally regarded as based on peripheral sensitization [46, 47, 127, 128, 130, 131] and may be related to local hyperalgesia. As pain or tenderness spread out from the hyperalgesic zone, this may appear to include proximal sites; however, this should be distinguished from proximal pain referral. With regard to actual referral of pain, Simons has opined that at least 85 % of MTrP’s refer pain in a distal direction [131], and this is generally in accord with my thesis. In the minority of other cases, perhaps what appears to be ‘proximal referral’ may actually be local spread to include some proximally located distribution within the same muscle or within the same sclerotome. This would make actual referral of pain from a peripherally-located MTrP to the spine itself, much less common whereas the opposite is much more common. This, again, is generally in accord with my thesis.
sis is both speculative and provocative at the same time.