A comparative analysis of chiropractic and general practitioner patients in North America: Findings from the joint Canada/United States survey of health, 2002–03

BACKGROUND: Scientifically rigorous general population-based studies comparing chiropractic with primary-care medical patients within and between countries have not been published. The objective of this study is to compare care seekers of doctors of chiropractic (DCs) and general practitioners (GPs) in the United States and Canada on a comprehensive set of sociodemographic, quality of life, and health-related variables. METHODS: Data are from the Joint Canada/U.S. Survey of Health (JCUSH), 2002–03, a random sample of adults in Canada (N = 3505) and the U.S. (N = 5183). Respondents were categorized according to their pattern of health-care use in the past year. Distributions, percentages, and estimates (adjusted odds ratios) weighted to reflect the complex survey design were produced. RESULTS: Nearly 80% of respondents sought care from GPs; 12% sought DC care. Compared with GP only patients, DC patients in both countries tend to be under 65 and white, with arthritis and disabling back or neck pain. U.S. DC patients are more likely than GP only patients to be obese and to lack a regular doctor; Canadian DC patients are more likely than GP only patients to be college educated, to have higher incomes, and dissatisfied with MD care. Compared with seekers of both GP and DC care, DC only patients in both countries have fewer chronic conditions, take fewer drugs, and have no regular doctor. U.S. DC only patients are more likely than GP+DC patients to be uninsured and dissatisfied with health care; Canadian DC only patients are more likely than GP+DC patients to be under 45, male, less educated, smokers, and not obese, without disabling back or neck pain, on fewer drugs, and lacking a regular doctor. CONCLUSION: Chiropractic and GP patients are dissimilar in both Canada and the U.S., with key differences between countries and between DC patients who do and do not seek care from GPs. Such variation has broad and potentially far-reaching health policy and research implications

Comparative effectiveness of manipulation, mobilisation and the Activator instrument in treatment of non-specific neck pain: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Neck pain is a common problem and different forms of manual therapy are used in its treatment. The purpose of this systematic review was to critically appraise the literature that directly compared manipulation, mobilisation and the Activator instrument for non-specific neck pain. METHODS: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, MANTIS and CINAHL) were searched from their inception to October 2005 for all English language randomised clinical trials that directly compared manipulation, mobilisation and the Activator instrument. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to select the studies and these studies were then evaluated using validated criteria. RESULTS: Five such studies were identified. The methodological quality was mostly poor. Findings from the studies were mixed and no one therapy was shown to be more effective than the others. CONCLUSION: Further high quality research has to be done before a recommendation can be made as to the most effective manual method for non-specific neck pain

Symptomatic reactions, clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction associated with upper cervical chiropractic care: A prospective, multicenter, cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>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 (<it>p </it><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.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>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.</p

A demographic and epidemiological study of a Mexican chiropractic college public clinic

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Descriptive studies of chiropractic patients are not new, several have been performed in the U.S., Australia, Canada, and Europe. None have been performed in a Latin American country. The purpose of this study is to describe the patients who visited a Mexican chiropractic college public clinic with respect to demographics and clinical characteristics.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study was reviewed and approved by the IRB of Parker College of Chiropractic and the Universidad Estatal del Valle de Ecatepec (UNEVE). Five hundred patient files from the UNEVE public clinic from May 2005 to May 2007 were selected from an approximate total number of 3,700. Information was collected for demographics, chief complaints, associated complaints, and previous care sought.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The sample comprised 306 (61.2%) female. Most files (44.2%) were in the age range of 40–59 years (mean of 43.4 years). The most frequent complaints were lumbar pain (29.2%) and extremity pain (28.0%), most commonly the knee. Most (62.0%) described their complaints as greater than one year. Trauma (46.6%) was indicated as the initial cause. Mean VAS score was 6.26/10 with 20% rated at 8/10.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Demographic results compared closer to studies conducted with private clinicians (females within the ages of 40–59). The primary complaint and duration was similar to previous studies (low back pain and chronic), except in this population the cause was usually initiated by trauma. The most striking features were the higher number of extremity complaints and the marked increased level of VAS score (20% rated as 8/10).</p

The attrition rate of licensed chiropractors in California: an exploratory ecological investigation of time-trend data

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The authors hypothesized the attrition rate of licensed chiropractors in California has gradually increased over the past several decades. "Attrition" as determined for this study is defined as a loss of legal authority to practice chiropractic for any reason during the first 10 years after the license was issued. The percentage of license attrition after 10 years was determined for each group of graduates licensed in California each year between 1970 and 1998. The cost of tuition, the increase in the supply of licensed chiropractors and the ratio of licensed chiropractors to California residents were examined as possible influences on the rate of license attrition.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The attrition rate was determined by a retrospective analysis of license status data obtained from the California Department of Consumer Affairs. Other variables were determined from US Bureau of Census data, survey data from the American Chiropractic Association and catalogs from a US chiropractic college.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The 10-year attrition rate rose from 10% for those graduates licensed in 1970 to a peak of 27.8% in 1991. The 10-year attrition rate has since remained between 20-25% for the doctors licensed between 1992-1998.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Available evidence supports the hypothesis that the attrition rate for licensed chiropractors in the first 10 years of practice has risen in the past several decades.</p

Does inter-vertebral range of motion increase after spinal manipulation? A prospective cohort study.

Background: Spinal manipulation for nonspecific neck pain is thought to work in part by improving inter-vertebral range of motion (IV-RoM), but it is difficult to measure this or determine whether it is related to clinical outcomes. Objectives: This study undertook to determine whether cervical spine flexion and extension IV-RoM increases after a course of spinal manipulation, to explore relationships between any IV-RoM increases and clinical outcomes and to compare palpation with objective measurement in the detection of hypo-mobile segments. Method: Thirty patients with nonspecific neck pain and 30 healthy controls matched for age and gender received quantitative fluoroscopy (QF) screenings to measure flexion and extension IV-RoM (C1-C6) at baseline and 4-week follow-up between September 2012-13. Patients received up to 12 neck manipulations and completed NRS, NDI and Euroqol 5D-5L at baseline, plus PGIC and satisfaction questionnaires at follow-up. IV-RoM accuracy, repeatability and hypo-mobility cut-offs were determined. Minimal detectable changes (MDC) over 4 weeks were calculated from controls. Patients and control IV-RoMs were compared at baseline as well as changes in patients over 4 weeks. Correlations between outcomes and the number of manipulations received and the agreement (Kappa) between palpated and QF-detected of hypo-mobile segments were calculated. Results: QF had high accuracy (worst RMS error 0.5o) and repeatability (highest SEM 1.1o, lowest ICC 0.90) for IV-RoM measurement. Hypo-mobility cut offs ranged from 0.8o to 3.5o. No outcome was significantly correlated with increased IV-RoM above MDC and there was no significant difference between the number of hypo-mobile segments in patients and controls at baseline or significant increases in IV-RoMs in patients. However, there was a modest and significant correlation between the number of manipulations received and the number of levels and directions whose IV-RoM increased beyond MDC (Rho=0.39, p=0.043). There was also no agreement between palpation and QF in identifying hypo-mobile segments (Kappa 0.04-0.06). Conclusions: This study found no differences in cervical sagittal IV-RoM between patients with non-specific neck pain and matched controls. There was a modest dose-response relationship between the number of manipulations given and number of levels increasing IV-RoM - providing evidence that neck manipulation has a mechanical effect at segmental levels. However, patient-reported outcomes were not related to this

Deletion of vascular endothelial growth factor in myeloid cells accelerates tumorigenesis.

Angiogenesis and the development of a vascular network are required for tumour progression, and they involve the release of angiogenic factors, including vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF-A), from both malignant and stromal cell types. Infiltration by cells of the myeloid lineage is a hallmark of many tumours, and in many cases the macrophages in these infiltrates express VEGF-A. Here we show that the deletion of inflammatory-cell-derived VEGF-A attenuates the formation of a typical high-density vessel network, thus blocking the angiogenic switch in solid tumours in mice. Vasculature in tumours lacking myeloid-cell-derived VEGF-A was less tortuous, with increased pericyte coverage and decreased vessel length, indicating vascular normalization. In addition, loss of myeloid-derived VEGF-A decreases the phosphorylation of VEGF receptor 2 (VEGFR2) in tumours, even though overall VEGF-A levels in the tumours are unaffected. However, deletion of myeloid-cell VEGF-A resulted in an accelerated tumour progression in multiple subcutaneous isograft models and an autochthonous transgenic model of mammary tumorigenesis, with less overall tumour cell death and decreased tumour hypoxia. Furthermore, loss of myeloid-cell VEGF-A increased the susceptibility of tumours to chemotherapeutic cytotoxicity. This shows that myeloid-derived VEGF-A is essential for the tumorigenic alteration of vasculature and signalling to VEGFR2, and that these changes act to retard, not promote, tumour progression

A randomised controlled trial of preventive spinal manipulation with and without a home exercise program for patients with chronic neck pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Evidence indicates that supervised home exercises, combined or not with manual therapy, can be beneficial for patients with non-specific chronic neck pain (NCNP). The objective of the study is to investigate the efficacy of preventive spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) compared to a no treatment group in NCNP patients. Another objective is to assess the efficacy of SMT with and without a home exercise program.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Ninety-eight patients underwent a short symptomatic phase of treatment before being randomly allocated to either an attention-group (n = 29), a SMT group (n = 36) or a SMT + exercise group (n = 33). The preventive phase of treatment, which lasted for 10 months, consisted of meeting with a chiropractor every two months to evaluate and discuss symptoms (attention-control group), 1 monthly SMT session (SMT group) or 1 monthly SMT session combined with a home exercise program (SMT + exercise group). The primary and secondary outcome measures were represented by scores on a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS), active cervical ranges of motion (cROM), the neck disability index (NDI) and the Bournemouth questionnaire (BQ). Exploratory outcome measures were scored on the Fear-avoidance Behaviour Questionnaire (FABQ) and the SF-12 Questionnaire.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Our results show that, in the preventive phase of the trial, all 3 groups showed primary and secondary outcomes scores similar to those obtain following the non-randomised, symptomatic phase. No group difference was observed for the primary, secondary and exploratory variables. Significant improvements in FABQ scores were noted in all groups during the preventive phase of the trial. However, no significant change in health related quality of life (HRQL) was associated with the preventive phase.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This study hypothesised that participants in the combined intervention group would have less pain and disability and better function than participants from the 2 other groups during the preventive phase of the trial. This hypothesis was not supported by the study results. Lack of a treatment specific effect is discussed in relation to the placebo and patient provider interactions in manual therapies. Further research is needed to delineate the specific and non-specific effects of treatment modalities to prevent unnecessary disability and to minimise morbidity related to NCNP. Additional investigation is also required to identify the best strategies for secondary and tertiary prevention of NCNP.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00566930">NCT00566930</a></p

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

Relative effectiveness and adverse effects of cervical manipulation, mobilisation and the activator instrument in patients with sub-acute non-specific neck pain: results from a stopped randomised trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Neck pain of a mechanical nature is a common complaint seen by practitioners of manual medicine, who use a multitude of methods to treat the condition. It is not known, however, if any of these methods are superior in treatment effectiveness. This trial was stopped due to poor recruitment. The purposes of this report are (1) to describe the trial protocol, (2) to report on the data obtained from subjects who completed the study, (3) to discuss the problems we encountered in conducting this study.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A pragmatic randomised clinical trial was undertaken. Patients who met eligibility criteria were randomised into three groups. One group was treated using specific segmental high velocity low amplitude manipulation (diversified), another by specific segmental mobilisation, and a third group by the Activator instrument. All three groups were also treated for any myofascial distortions and given appropriate exercises and advice. Participants were treated six times over a three-week period or until they reported being pain free. The primary outcome measure for the study was Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC); secondary outcome measures included the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36v₂), the neck Bournemouth Questionnaire, and the numerical rating scale for pain intensity. Participants also kept a diary of any pain medication taken and noted any perceived adverse effects of treatment. Outcomes were measured at four points: end of treatment, and 3, 6, and 12 months thereafter.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Between January 2007 and March 2008, 123 patients were assessed for eligibility, of these 47 were considered eligible, of which 16 were allocated to manipulation, 16 to the Activator instrument and 15 to the mobilisation group. Comparison between the groups on the PGIC adjusted for baseline covariants did not show a significant difference for any of the endpoints. Within group analyses for change from baseline to the 12-month follow up for secondary outcomes were significant for all groups on the Bournemouth Questionnaire and for pain, while the mobilisation group had a significant improvement on the PCS and MCS subscales of the SF-36_v2. Finally, there were no moderate, severe, or long-lasting adverse effects reported by any participant in any group.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Although the small sample size must be taken into consideration, it appears that all three methods of treating mechanical neck pain had a long-term benefit for subacute neck pain, without moderate or serious adverse events associated with any of the treatment methods. There were difficulties in recruiting subjects to this trial. This pragmatic trial should be repeated with a larger sample size.</p