Chiropractic, one big unhappy family: Better together or apart?

Background The chiropractic profession has a long history of internal conflict. Today, the division is between the 'evidence-friendly' faction that focuses on musculoskeletal problems based on a contemporary and evidence-based paradigm, and the 'traditional' group that subscribes to concepts such as 'subluxation' and the spine as the centre of good health. This difference is becoming increasingly obvious and problematic from both within and outside of the profession in light of the general acceptance of evidence-based practice as the basis for health care. Because this is an issue with many factors to consider, we decided to illustrate it with an analogy. We aimed to examine the chiropractic profession from the perspective of an unhappy marriage by defining key elements in happy and unhappy marriages and by identifying factors that may determine why couples stay together or spilt up. Main body We argue here that the situation within the chiropractic profession corresponds very much to that of an unhappy couple that stays together for reasons that are unconnected with love or even mutual respect. We also contend that the profession could be conceptualised as existing on a spectrum with the 'evidence-friendly' and the 'traditional' groups inhabiting the end points, with the majority of chiropractors in the middle. This middle group does not appear to be greatly concerned with either faction and seems comfortable taking an approach of 'you never know who and what will respond to spinal manipulation'. We believe that this 'silent majority' makes it possible for groups of chiropractors to practice outside the logical framework of today's scientific concepts. Conclusion There is a need to pause and consider if the many reasons for disharmony within the chiropractic profession are, in fact, irreconcilable. It is time to openly debate the issue of a professional split by engaging in formal and courageous discussions. This item should be prioritised on the agendas of national associations, conferences, teaching institutions, and licensing/registration as well as accreditation bodies. However, for this to happen, the middle group of chiropractors will have to become engaged and consider the benefits and risks of respectively staying together or breaking up

More published full-time researchers, early career researchers, clinician-researchers and graduate students unite to call for actions against the pseudoscientific claim that chiropractic care boosts immunity

Letter to the edito

Clinicians' Ability to Detect a Palpable Difference in Spinal Stiffness Compared With a Mechanical Device.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to quantify the threshold at which clinicians can detect a difference in spinal stiffness of the thoracic and lumbar spine via palpation and then determine if this detection threshold would affect a clinician's ability to identify changes in spinal stiffness as measured by an objective instrument. METHODS: In this study, the threshold at which a change in spinal stiffness was detected was quantified in 12 experienced clinicians (physical therapists and doctors of chiropractic) by changing the differential stiffness in 2 inflatable targets until the clinician could no longer identify which was stiffer. In the second part of the study, clinicians then were asked to palpate pre-identified pairs of vertebrae in an asymptomatic volunteer and to identify the stiffer of the pair (T7 and L3, T7 and L4, L3 and L4), and the biomechanical stiffness of each vertebral pair was quantified objectively by a validated instrument. RESULTS: The mean stiffness detection threshold for the clinicians was 8%. Objective measurement of the stiffness differential between vertebral pairs was 30% for T7* and L3, 20% for T7* and L4, and 10% for L3* and L4 (*denotes the stiffer of the pair). Ten of 12 clinicians correctly identified T7 as stiffer when compared with L3 and T7 as stiffer than L4. Alternatively, when the differential vertebral pair stiffness was similar to the stiffness detection threshold (~8%), clinicians were less successful in identifying the stiffer vertebra of the pair; 4 of 12 clinicians correctly identified L3 as being stiffer compared with L4. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that the physiological limits of human palpation may limit the ability of clinicians to identify small alterations in spine stiffness

Response to Lawrence DJ: The global summit on the efficacy and effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy for the prevention and treatment of non-musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic review of the literature

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Letter to the Editor by Dana J. Lawrence. In his letter, Lawrence states that the results of our systematic review may be due to bias. However, he does not adequately substantiate his claims..

Association between change in abdominal and lumbar multifidus muscle thickness and clinical outcome following spinal manipulative therapy

No abstract availabl

Preliminary investigation of the mechanisms underlying the effects of manipulation: Exploration of a multivariate model including spinal stiffness, multifidus recruitment, and clinical findings

Study Design.: Prospective case series. Objective.: To examine spinal stiffness in patients with low back pain (LBP) receiving spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), evaluate associations between stiffness characteristics and clinical outcome, and explore a multivariate model of SMT mechanisms as related to effects on stiffness, lumbar multifidus (LM) recruitment, and status on a clinical prediction rule (CPR) for SMT outcomes. Summary of Background Data.: Mechanisms underlying the clinical effects of SMT are poorly understood. Many explanations have been proposed, but few studies have related potential mechanisms to clinical outcomes or considered multiple mechanisms concurrently. Methods.: Patients with LBP were treated with two SMT sessions over 1 week. CPR status was assessed at baseline. Clinical outcome was based on the Oswestry disability index (ODI). Mechanized indentation measures of spinal stiffness and ultrasonic measures of LM recruitment were taken before and after each SMT, and after 1 week. Global and terminal stiffness were calculated. Multivariate regression was used to evaluate the relationship between stiffness variables and percentage ODI improvement. Zero-order correlations among stiffness variables, LM recruitment changes, CPR status, and clinical outcome were examined. A path analysis was used to evaluate a multivariate model of SMT effects. Results.: Forty-eight patients (54% women) had complete stiffness data. Significant immediate decreases in global and terminal stiffness occurred post-SMT regardless of outcome. ODI improvement was related to greater immediate decrease in global stiffness (P = 0.025), and less initial terminal stiffness (P = 0.01). Zero-order correlations and path analysis supported a multivariate model suggesting that clinical outcome of SMT is mediated by improvements in LM recruitment and immediate decrease in global stiffness. Initial terminal stiffness and CPR status may relate to outcome though their relationship with LM recruitment. Conclusion.: The underlying mechanisms explaining the benefits of SMT appear to be multifactorial. Both spinal stiffness characteristics and LM recruitment changes appear to play a role

Research priorities of the Australian Chiropractic Profession: A Cross-Sectional survey of academics and practitioners

Objective The purpose of this study was to explore the research priorities of Australian practicing chiropractors and academics across a set of research domains to determine the agreement or disagreement based on these domains. Methods We conducted a pilot-tested online survey focusing on the following 5 principal research domains: basic science, conditions (disorders chiropractors may encounter), patient subgroups, clinical interventions, and practice and public health/health services. Responses were sought regarding support for funding research scholarships, practice-based research networks, scientific conferences/symposia, journals, and existing research agendas. Data were collected (February 19 to May 24, 2019) from a sample of chiropractic academics (n1 = 33) representing 4 Australian programs and practicing chiropractors (n2 = 340). Collected data were ranked and analyzed to determine agreement across domains and items. Results There was agreement between the 2 groups across the majority (>90%) of domain items. The closest agreement and highest rankings were achieved for the “clinical interventions and practice” and “conditions” domains. Disagreement was observed within specific domain items, such as patient subgroups (infants), and for 1 intervention (chiropractic-specific techniques). Disagreement also occurred outside of the main domains, including research agenda support and funding. Conclusions There was overall agreement between practicing chiropractors and academics across most research area domain items, which should help facilitate consensus-led development of any potential Australian Chiropractic research agenda. Disagreements across specific domain items, such as population subgroups, interventions, and funding require further investigation

The Chiropractic Research Priorities in Australia (ChiRPA) project: A study protocol

Introduction Building and implementing a robust evidence-base which is informed by high quality research is the challenge facing contemporary healthcare professions. In doing so, it can be valuable for healthcare professions to establish a strategic research agenda in order to enhance the professions public health priorities within healthcare and assist in the allocation of limited research resources. Whilst formal chiropractic research agendas have been established in North America and Europe, no comprehensive, inter-organisational chiropractic research agenda has been formulated within the Australian context. A critical precursor to inform the development of any such Australian chiropractic research agenda, is the identification of the priorities held by practising chiropractors, chiropractic academics, educators, researchers, and postgraduate HDR students, along with an appraisal of the current research capacity and output of the Australian chiropractic profession. Objectives Design a questionnaire to; a) identify and rank the research priorities of a national sample of practising chiropractors, chiropractic academics, educators, researchers, and postgraduate HDR students, and; b) examine the current research capacity and output of the Australian chiropractic profession. Methods A survey instrument design was developed via an iterative process that initially built upon an extensive search of the chiropractic research priority literature from which items were aggregated and distilled. Senior and experienced members of the profession were then consulted to identify other items that should be considered for inclusion. Results The finalised cross-sectional questionnaire is a self-administered, multi-dimensional instrument comprising 5 main research categories. In addition, the questionnaire also includes items such as research funding, support for existing research agendas, and suggestions for future research. The questionnaire also explores research output, research barriers, research time allocation, perspectives on engagement, interdisciplinary collaboration and secured research funding. Analysis Quantitative data will be descriptively analysed whilst qualitative data will be analysed and reported along standard qualitative study protocols. Conclusion The Australian chiropractic profession needs to maximise ambitious, collaborative, creative research performed at best practice standards and then accelerate the implementation of useful findings that emerge. By ensuring the voices of all sectors of the profession are heard in the formulation of an Australian Chiropractic Research Agenda, the findings from our study will provide important insights into future research directions for the Australian chiropractic profession

Criterion validity of manual assessment of spinal stiffness

Assessment of spinal stiffness is widely used by manual therapy practitioners as a part of clinical diagnosis and treatment selection. Although studies have commonly found poor reliability of such procedures, conflicting evidence suggests that assessment of spinal stiffness may help predict response to specific treatments. The current study evaluated the criterion validity of manual assessments of spinal stiffness by comparing them to indentation measurements in patients with low back pain (LBP). As part of a standard examination, an experienced clinician assessed passive accessory spinal stiffness of the L3 vertebrae using posterior to anterior (PA) force on the spinous process of L3 in 50 subjects (54% female, mean (SD) age ¼ 33.0 (12.8) years, BMI ¼ 27.0 (6.0) kg/m2) with LBP. A criterion measure of spinal stiffness was performed using mechanized indentation by a blinded second examiner. Results indicated that manual assessments were uncorrelated to criterion measures of stiffness (spearman rho ¼ 0.06, p ¼ 0.67). Similarly, sensitivity and specificity estimates of judgments of hypomobility were low (0.20 e0.45) and likelihood ratios were generally not statistically significant. Sensitivity and specificity of judgments of hypermobility were not calculated due to limited prevalence. Additional analysis found that BMI explained 32% of the variance in the criterion measure of stiffness, yet failed to improve the relationship between assessments. Additional studies should investigate whether manual assessment of stiffness relates to other clinical and biomechanical constructs, such as symptom reproduction, angular rotation, quality of motion, or end feel