Review conclusions by Ernst and Canter regarding spinal manipulation refuted

In the April 2006 issue of the Journal of Royal Society of Medicine, Ernst and Canter authored a review of the most recent systematic reviews on the effectiveness of spinal manipulation for any condition. The authors concluded that, except for back pain, spinal manipulation is not an effective intervention for any condition and, because of potential side effects, cannot be recommended for use at all in clinical practice. Based on a critical appraisal of their review, the authors of this commentary seriously challenge the conclusions by Ernst and Canter, who did not adhere to standard systematic review methodology, thus threatening the validity of their conclusions. There was no systematic assessment of the literature pertaining to the hazards of manipulation, including comparison to other therapies. Hence, their claim that the risks of manipulation outweigh the benefits, and thus spinal manipulation cannot be recommended as treatment for any condition, was not supported by the data analyzed. Their conclusions are misleading and not based on evidence that allow discrediting of a large body of professionals using spinal manipulation

Accessing the literature: using bibliographic databases to find journal articles. Part 1

Research in primary dental care, recertification, continuing professional development, lifelong learning, peer review and quality healthcare are all informed by the published literature. Dental practitioners can find out about reliable and up-to-date information available in the published literature by searching bibliographic databases. Published in two parts, this article describes the databases relevant to clinical dental practice and explains the generic skills required to search them effectively, focusing on MEDLINE, the database most relevant for the majority of dental practitioners, which is freely available via the World Wide Web (WWW). The article differentiates between sensitivity (maximum recall) and specificity (relevance of recall), and suggests how to identify a manageable number of relevant citations, how to save the citations, and how to obtain the full text. In part 2, the article concludes by alerting readers to some of the limitations and pitfalls of database-searching

Chiropractic and children: Is more research enough?

Many health science research and review articles end with the words: "More research is needed". However, when it comes to research, it is not as much a question of quantity as of quality. There are a number of important prerequisites before research should be initiated. The three pillars, relevance, quality and ethics should be respected but for a project to be meaningful, it must also be based on plausible rationale

Common extensor origin release in recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis - role justified?

The aim of our study was to analyse the efficacy of operative management in recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis of elbow. Forty patients included in this study were referred by general practitioners with a diagnosis of tennis elbow to the orthopaedic department at a district general hospital over a five year period. All had two or more steroid injections at the tender spot, without permanent relief of pain. All subsequently underwent simple fasciotomy of the extensor origin. Of forty patients thirty five had improvement in pain and function, two had persistent symptoms and three did not perceive any improvement. Twenty five had excellent, ten had well, two had fair and three had poor outcomes (recurrent problem; pain at rest and night). Two patients underwent revision surgery. Majority of the patients had improvement in pain and function following operative treatment. In this study, an extensor fasciotomy was demonstrated to be an effective treatment for refractory chronic lateral epicondylitis; however, further studies are warranted

Attitudes towards chiropractic: an analysis of written comments from a survey of north american orthopaedic surgeons

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is increasing interest by chiropractors in North America regarding integration into mainstream healthcare; however, there is limited information about attitudes towards the profession among conventional healthcare providers, including orthopaedic surgeons.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We administered a 43-item cross-sectional survey to 1000 Canadian and American orthopaedic surgeons that inquired about demographic variables and their attitudes towards chiropractic. Our survey included an option for respondants to include written comments, and our present analysis is restricted to these comments. Two reviewers, independantly and in duplicate, coded all written comments using thematic analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>487 surgeons completed the survey (response rate 49%), and 174 provided written comments. Our analysis revealed 8 themes and 24 sub-themes represented in surgeons' comments. Reported themes were: variability amongst chiropractors (n = 55); concerns with chiropractic treatment (n = 54); areas where chiropractic is perceived as effective (n = 43); unethical behavior (n = 43); patient interaction (n = 36); the scientific basis of chiropractic (n = 26); personal experiences with chiropractic (n = 21); and chiropractic training (n = 18). Common sub-themes endorsed by surgeon's were diversity within the chiropractic profession as a barrier to increased interprofessional collaboration, endorsement for chiropractic treatment of musculoskeletal complaints, criticism for treatment of non-musculoskeletal complaints, and concern over whether chiropractic care was evidence-based.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our analysis identified a number of issues that will have to be considered by the chiropractic profession as part of its efforts to further integrate chiropractic into mainstream healthcare.</p

Are benefits and harms in mammography screening given equal attention in scientific articles? A cross-sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The CONSORT statement specifies the need for a balanced presentation of both benefits and harms of medical interventions in trial reports. However, invitations to screening and newspaper articles often emphasize benefits and downplay or omit harms, and it is known that scientific articles can be influenced by conflicts of interest. We wanted to determine if a similar imbalance occurs in scientific articles on mammography screening and if it is related to author affiliation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We searched PubMed in April 2005 for articles on mammography screening that mentioned a benefit or a harm and that were published in 2004 in English. Data extraction was performed by three independent investigators, two unblinded and one blinded for article contents, and author names and affiliation, as appropriate. The extracted data were compared and discrepancies resolved by two investigators in a combined analysis. We defined three groups of authors: (1) authors in specialties unrelated to mammography screening, (2) authors in screening-affiliated specialties (radiology or breast cancer surgery) who were not working with screening, or authors funded by cancer charities, and (3) authors (at least one) working directly with mammography screening programmes. We used a data extraction sheet with 17 items described as important benefits and harms in the 2002 WHO/IARC-report on breast cancer screening.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We identified 854 articles, and 143 were eligible for the study. Most were original research. Benefits were mentioned more often than harms (96% vs 62%, P < 0.001). Fifty-five (38%) articles mentioned only benefits, whereas seven (5%) mentioned only harms (P < 0.001). Overdiagnosis was mentioned in 35 articles (24%), but was more often downplayed or rejected in articles that had authors working with screening, (6/15; 40%) compared with authors affiliated by specialty or funding (1/6; 17%), or authors unrelated with screening (1/14; 7%) (P = 0.03). Benefits in terms of reduced breast cancer mortality were mentioned in 109 (76%) articles, and was more often provided as a relative risk reduction than an absolute risk reduction, where quantified (45 articles (31%) versus 6 articles (3%) (P < 0.001)).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Scientific articles tend to emphasize the major benefits of mammography screening over its major harms. This imbalance is related to the authors' affiliation.</p

Feasibility of pharmacy-initiated pharmacogenetic screening for CYP2D6 and CYP2C19

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to investigate the feasibility of pharmacy-initiated pharmacogenetic (PGt) screening in primary care with respect to patient willingness to participate, quality of DNA collection with saliva kits, genotyping, and dispensing data retrieved from the pharmacy. METHODS: Polypharmacy patients aged >60 years who used at least one drug with Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) code N06AA01-N06AX19 (antidepressants), A02BC01-A02BC05 (proton-pump inhibitors), N05AA01-N05AH04 (antipsychotics), or C07AB02 (metoprolol) in the preceding 2 years were randomly selected. DNA was collected with saliva kits and genotyped for CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 with the AmpliChip. Pharmacy dispensing records were retrieved and screened for drugs interacting with the patient's CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 genotype by using the evidence-based PGt guidelines from the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group. RESULTS: Out of the 93 invited patients, 54 (58.1%) provided informed consent. Nine saliva samples (16.7%) contained too little DNA. Call rates for CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 were 93.3% and 100%, respectively. Frequencies of genotype-predicted phenotype were 2.4%, 38.1%, 54.8%, and 4.8% for CYP2D6 poor metabolizers (PM), intermediate metabolizers (IM), extensive metabolizers (EM), and ultrarapid metabolizers (UM) respectively. For CYP2C19 genotype-predicted phenotype, frequencies were 2.2%, 15.6%, and 82.2% for PM, IM, and EM, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that pharmacy-initiated PGt screening is feasible for a primary care setting