Australian chiropractic sports medicine: half way there or living on a prayer?

Sports chiropractic within Australia has a chequered historical background of unorthodox individualistic displays of egocentric treatment approaches that emphasise specific technique preference and individual prowess rather than standardised evidence based management. This situation has changed in recent years with the acceptance of many within sports chiropractic to operate under an evidence informed banner and to embrace a research culture. Despite recent developments within the sports chiropractic movement, the profession is still plagued by a minority of practitioners continuing to espouse certain marginal and outlandish technique systems that beleaguer the mainstream core of sports chiropractic as a cohesive and homogeneous group. Modern chiropractic management is frequently multimodal in nature and incorporates components of passive and active care. Such management typically incorporates spinal and peripheral manipulation, mobilisation, soft tissue techniques, rehabilitation and therapeutic exercises. Externally, sports chiropractic has faced hurdles too, with a lack of recognition and acceptance by organized and orthodox sports medical groups. Whilst some arguments against the inclusion of chiropractic may be legitimate due to its historical baggage, much of the argument appears to be anti-competitive, insecure and driven by a closed-shop mentality.sequently, chiropractic as a profession still remains a pariah to the organised sports medicine world. Add to this an uncertain continuing education system, a lack of protection for the title 'sports chiropractor', a lack of a recognized specialist status and a lack of support from traditional chiropractic, the challenges for the growth and acceptance of the sports chiropractor are considerable. This article outlines the historical and current challenges, both internal and external, faced by sports chiropractic within Australia and proposes positive changes that will assist in recognition and inclusion of sports chiropractic in both chiropractic and multi-disciplinary sports medicine alike

Watch and wait after neoadjuvant treatment in rectal cancer: comparison of outcomes in patients with and without a complete response at first reassessment in the International Watch & Wait Database (IWWD)

Background: In rectal cancer, watch and wait for patients with a cCR after neoadjuvant treatment has an established evidence base. However, there is a lack of consensus on the definition and management of a near-cCR. This study aimed to compare outcomes in patients who achieved a cCR at first reassessment versus later reassessment. Methods: This registry study included patients from the International Watch & Wait Database. Patients were categorized as having a cCR at first reassessment or at later reassessment (that is near-cCR at first reassessment) based on MRI and endoscopy. Organ preservation, distant metastasis-free survival, and overall survival rates were calculated. Subgroup analyses were done for near-cCR groups based on the response evaluation according to modality. Results: A total of 1010 patients were identified. At first reassessment, 608 patients had a cCR; 402 had a cCR at later reassessment. Median follow-up was 2.6 years for patients with a cCR at first reassessment and 2.9 years for those with a cCR at later reassessment. The 2-year organ preservation rate was 77.8 (95 per cent c.i. 74.2 to 81.5) and 79.3 (75.1 to 83.7) per cent respectively (P = 0.499). Similarly, no differences were found between groups in distant metastasis-free survival or overall survival rate. Subgroup analyses showed a higher organ preservation rate in the group with a near-cCR categorized exclusively by MRI. Conclusion: Oncological outcomes for patients with a cCR at later reassessment are no worse than those of patients with a cCR at first reassessment.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio