MD, PhD, MAE, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd.

chiropractic

This study aims to assess the feasibility of a pragmatic prospective study aiming to report the immediate and delayed (48-hours post-treatment) AEs associated with manual therapies in children aged 5 or younger and to report preliminary data on AEs frequency.

Between July 2021 and March 2022, chiropractors were recruited through purposive sampling and via a dedicated Facebook group for Quebec chiropractors interested in pediatrics. Legal guardians of patients aged 5 or younger were invited to fill out an online information and consent form. AEs were collected using the SafetyNET reporting system, which had been previously translated by the research team. Immediate AEs were collected through a questionnaire filled out by the legal guardian immediately after the treatment, while delayed AEs were collected through a questionnaire sent by email to the legal guardian 48 h after the treatment. Feasibility was assessed qualitatively through feedback from chiropractors and quantitatively through recruitment data.

Overall, a total of 28 chiropractors expressed interest following the Facebook publication, and 5 participated. An additional two chiropractors were enrolled through purposive sampling. In total, 80 legal guardians consented to their child’s participation, and data from 73 children were included for the analysis of AEs. At least one AE was reported in 30% of children (22/73), and AEs were mainly observed immediately following the treatment (16/22). The most common AEs were irritability/crying (11 children) or fatigue/tiredness (11 children). Feasibility analysis demonstrated that regular communication between the research team and clinicians, as well as targeting clinicians who showed great interest in pediatrics, were key factors for successful research.

The authors concluded that their results suggest that it is feasible to conduct a prospective pragmatic study evaluating AEs associated with manual therapies in private practices. Direct communication with the clinicians, a strategic clinicians’ recruitment plan, and the resulting administrative burden should be considered in future studies. A larger study is required to confirm the frequency of AEs reported in the current study.

It is hardly surprising that such a study is ‘feasible’. I could have told the authors that and saved them the trouble of doing the study. What is surprising, in my view, that chiropractors, after ~120 years of existence of the profession, ask whether it is feasible.

I suggest to do the definitive study on a much larger sample, extend the observation period, and recruit a representative rather than self-selected sample of chiros … or – much better – forget about the study and establich a functioning post-marketing surveillance system.

These days, it has become a rare event – I am speaking of me publishing a paper in the peer-reviewed medical literature. But it has just happened: Spanish researchers and I published a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of craniosacral therapy. Here is its abstract:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of craniosacral therapy (CST) in the management of any conditions. Two independent reviewers searched the PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Osteopathic Medicine Digital Library databases in August 2023, and extracted data from randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the clinical effectiveness of CST. The PEDro scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool were used to assess the potential risk of bias in the included studies. The certainty of the evidence of each outcome variable was determined using GRADEpro. Quantitative synthesis was carried out with RevMan 5.4 software using random effect models.

Fifteen RCTs were included in the qualitative and seven in the quantitative synthesis. For musculoskeletal disorders, the qualitative and quantitative synthesis suggested that CST produces no statistically significant or clinically relevant changes in pain and/or disability/impact in patients with headache disorders, neck pain, low back pain, pelvic girdle pain, or fibromyalgia. For non-musculoskeletal disorders, the qualitative and quantitative synthesis showed that CST was not effective for managing infant colic, preterm infants, cerebral palsy, or visual function deficits.

We concluded that the qualitative and quantitative synthesis of the evidence suggest that CST produces no benefits in any of the musculoskeletal or non-musculoskeletal conditions assessed. Two RCTs suggested statistically significant benefits of CST in children. However, both studies are seriously flawed, and their findings are thus likely to be false positive.

So, CST is not really an effective option for any condition.

Not a big surprise! After all, the assumptions on which CST is based fly in the face of science.

Since CST is nonetheless being used by many healthcare professionals, it is, I feel, important to state and re-state that CST is an implausible intervention that is not supported by clinical evidence. Hopefully then, one day, these practitioners will remember that their ethical obligation is to treat their patients not according to their beliefs but according to the best available evidence. And, hopefully, our modest paper will have helped rendering healthcare a little less irrational and somewhat more effective.

I had never heard of him – but after getting insulted by ‘Dr. Nick Campos’ I became interested and looked him up. What I found was interesting. Here is how he describes himself.

Dr. Nick Campos is a teacher of universal principles and truths as they pertain to the health, wellness and evolution of body, mind and spirit, particularly as they relate to human growth and potential.

As a healer trained in the art of chiropractic, and as a prominent chiropractic sports physician, he has helped thousands of people overcome physical injury and trauma, allowing them to regain their functional lives.

Dr. Campos believes that wellness encompasses more than just the physical body, so a balanced mental and spiritual life is also necessary for full expression of being. Therefore, Dr. Campos assists people with mental and spiritual challenges and misperceptions, while teaching them tools to empower themselves in all areas of life.

Dr. Campos teaches universal principles of health, wellness, growth and evolution as they pertain to body, mind and spirit. His work is carried out through several media including books, articles and a widely-read, syndicated blog (Optimal Health). His book The Six Keys to Optimal Health is the quintessential guide to achieving and maintaining optimal wellness in the twenty-first century. Dr. Campos’ mission is to inspire people to adopt a new way of thinking and living.

In 2010 Dr. Campos launched his evolutionary personal growth and development consulting business dedicated to helping people tune-into and manifest their most inspired dreams. As the Dream Designer™, Dr. Campos shows people how to uncover their life’s purpose, and how to implement powerful strategies designed to create the life of their dreams.

Dr. Nick Campos has a planetary vision of impacting billions of people for years to come. His inspired mission is to help people tap into their incredible self-healing, self-regulating powers. With certainty and gratitude, he aims to teach the world the power inherent in the human mind, and prepare humankind for the next phase of planetary evolution. As the world changes rapidly, those that adapt steadily and most-balanced will have the greatest advantage to navigating new horizons.

Dr. Campos is committed to discovering, understanding and sharing the tools that human beings will invariably need to be successful in a changing world—health, wellness, financial security, effective communication and interpersonal relations, leadership, business purpose and development, parenting, and education to name a few. Through research, collaborative exchange of information, and mass educational accessibility, Dr. Campos strives to empower human beings to be successful pioneers into a vast technological, informational and explorational age.
After this platitude-overload, I asked myself: what does Dr Campos actually do for a living?
The answer is simple: He is ‘Dream Designer’!
What?
Yes, did you not know? A dream designer helps people define and design their dream lives:

Many people limp through their lives following other people’s standards, and striving for achievement in areas not really inspiring to them. As a result, they end up suffering from frustration, lack of fulfillment and potentially depression. Does this sound like you?

By not following your innermost drives, or by repressing your true heart’s desires, you run the greatest risk of succumbing to physical and mental pressures, strain and ultimately illness. Life can be stressful enough without the added anxiety of not knowing who you are or where you are going.

Chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia are modern manifestations of this lack of purpose,  but that doesn’t have to be your destiny.

Dream Design consulting services starts by helping you tune-in to your most authentic self—who you are, what you value, and how your body and mind work to direct you down your most inspired path. You will uncover the fears, resentments and infatuations that have been acting as barriers to your personal growth, and learn effective ways to overcome them.

And Dr Campos gives courses. On his website, we currently find Upcoming dates:

January 14, 2023                                                         Burbank, CA

January 26, 2023                                                          Palm Desert, CA

February 11, 2023                                                         Thousand Oaks, CA

February 23, 2023                                                         Palm Desert, CA

March 11, 2023                                                               Burbank, CA

March 25, 2023                                                              Palm Desert, CA

______________________________

Either this line of his business is not doing all that well or he offers time travel as part of the package.

On X 9formally Twitter), ,Dr’ Campos called me a LOSER – perhaps I should return the compliment?

 

 

An article about chiropractic caught my attention. Let me show you its final section which, I think, is relevant to what we often discuss on this blog:

If chiropractic treatment is unscientific, then why do I feel better? Because lots of things alleviate pain. Massage, analgesia and heat – but also a provider who listens, empathises and bothers to examine a patient. Then there is the placebo effect. For centuries, doctors have recognised that different interventions with unclear pathways result in clinical improvement. Among the benefits patients attributed to placebo 100 years ago: “I sleep better; my appetite is improved; my breathing is better; I can walk further without pain in my chest; my nerves are steadier.” Nothing has changed. Pain is a universal assignment; no one has a monopoly on its relief.

The chiropractic industry owes its existence to a ghost. Its founder, David Palmer, wrote in his memoir The Chiropractor that the principles of spinal manipulation were passed on to him during a séance by a doctor who had been dead for half a century. Before this, Palmer was a “magnetic healer”.

Today, chiropractors preside over a multibillion-dollar regulated industry that draws patients for various reasons. Some can’t find or afford a doctor, feel dismissed, or worse, mistreated. Others mistrust the medical establishment and big pharma. Still others want natural healing. But none of these reasons justifies conflating a chiropractor with a doctor. The conflation feels especially hazardous in an environment of health illiteracy, where the mere title of doctor confers upon its bearer strong legitimacy.

Chiropractors don’t have the same training as doctors. They cannot issue prescriptions or order advanced imaging. They do not undergo lifelong peer review or open themselves to monthly morbidity audits.

I know that doctors could do with a dose of humility, but I can’t find any evidence (or the need) for the assertion on one website that chiropractors are “academic overachievers”. Or the ambit claim that most health professionals have no idea how complicated the brain is, but chiropractors do.

Forget doctors, patients deserve more respect.

My friend’s back feels better for now. When it flares, I wonder if she will seek my advice – and I am prepared to hear no. Everyone is entitled to see a chiropractor. But no patient should visit a chiropractor thinking that they are seeing a doctor.

______________________

I would put it more bluntly:

  • chiropractors are poorly trained; in particular, they do not learn to question their own, often ridiculous beliefs;
  • they are poorly regulated; in the UK, the GCC seems to protect the chiros rather than the public;
  • chiropractors regularly disregard essential rules of medical ethics, e.g. informed consent;
  • many try to mislead us by pretending they are physicians;
  • their hallmark intervention, spinal manipulation, can cause considerable harm;
  • it generates hardly any demonstrable benefit for any condition;
  • chiropractors also cause considerable harm, e.g. by interfering with real medicine, e.g. vaccinations;
  • thus, in general, chiropractors do more harm than good;
  • yes, everyone is entitled to see a chiropractor, but before they do, reliable information should be mandatory.

Millions of US adults use so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). In 2012, 55 million adults spent $28.3 billion on SCAMs, comparable to 9% of total out-of-pocket health care expenditures. A recent analysis conducted by the US National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) suggests a substantial increase in the overall use of SCAM by American adults from 2002 to 2022. The paper published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, highlights a surge in the use of SCAM particularly for pain management.

Data from the 2002, 2012, and 2022 National Health Interview Surveys (NHISs) were employed to evaluate changes in the use of 7 SCAMs:

  1. yoga,
  2. meditation,
  3. massage therapy,
  4. chiropractic,
  5. acupuncture,
  6. naturopathy,
  7. guided imagery/progressive muscle relaxation.

The key findings include:

  • The percentage of individuals who reported using at least one of the SCAMs increased from 19.2% in 2002 to 36.7% in 2022.
  • The use of yoga, meditation, and massage therapy experienced the most significant growth.
  • Use of yoga increased from 5% in 2002 to 16% in 2022.
  • Meditation became the most popular SCAM in 2022, with an increase from 7.5% in 2002 to 17.3% in 2022.
  • Acupuncture saw an increase from 1% in 2002 to 2.2% in 2022.
  • The smallest rise was noted for chiropractic, from 79 to 86%

The analyses also suggested a rise in the proportion of US adults using SCAMs specifically for pain management. Among participants using any SCAM, the percentage reporting use for pain management increased from 42% in 2002 to 49% in 2022.

Limitations of the survey include:

  • decreasing NHIS response rates over time,
  • possible recall bias,
  • cross-sectional data,
  • differences in the wording of the surveys.

The NCCIH researchers like such surveys and tend to put a positive spin on them, i.e. SCAM is becoming more and more popular because it is supported by better and better evidence. Therefore, SCAM should be available to everyone who wants is.

But, of course, the spin could also turn in the opposite direction, i.e. the risk/benefit balance for most SCAMs is either negative or uncertain, and their cost-benefit remains unclear – as seen regularly on this blog. Therefore, the fact that SCAM seems to be getting more popular is of increasing concern. In particular, more consideration ought to be given to the indirect risks of SCAM (think, for instance, only of the influence SCAM practitioners have on the vaccination rates) that we often discuss here but that the NCCIH conveniently tends to ignore.

As we have often discussed on this blog, chiropractic spinal manipulations can lead to several complications and can result in vascular injury, including traumatic dissection of the vertebral arteries with often dire consequences – see, for instance, here:

 

This recent paper is a most unusual addition to the list. It is a case report of a 43-year-old woman who was admitted to the emergency department after performing a self-chiropractic spinal manipulation. She experienced headache and vomiting and was unresponsive with severe hypertension at the time of hospital admission. Clinical computerized tomography angiography showed narrowing of the right vertebral artery but was inconclusive for dissection or thrombosis.

The patient died a short while later. At autopsy, subacute dissection of the right vertebral artery was identified along with cerebral edema and herniation. A small peripheral pulmonary thromboembolism in the right lung was also seen. Neuropathology consultation confirmed the presence of diffuse cerebral edema and acute hypoxic-ischemic changes, with multifocal acute subarachnoid and intraparenchymal hemorrhage of the brain and spinal cord.

The authors concluded that this case presents a unique circumstance of a fatal vertebral artery dissection after self-chiropractic manipulation that, to the best of our knowledge, has not been previously described in the medical literature.

We have often asked whether the General Chiropractic Council (GCC) is fit for purpose. A recent case bought before the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) of the GCC provides further food for thought.

The male chiropractor in question admitted to the PCC that:

  • he had requested the younger female patient remove her clothing to her underwear for the purposes of examination;
  • he then treated the area near her vagina and groin with a vibrating tool;
  • that he also treated the area around her breasts.

After the appointment, which the patient had originally booked for a problem with her neck, the patient reflected on the treatment and eventually complained about the chiropractor to the GCC. The PCC considered the case and did not find unprofessional conduct in the actions and conduct of the chiropractor. His the diagnosis and treatment were both found to be clinically justified.

According to the GCC, the lesson from this case is that the complaint to the GCC may have been avoided if the chiropractor had been more alert to the need to ensure he communicated effectively so that the patient was clear as to why the intimate areas were being treated and, on that basis, given informed consent. Patients often feel vulnerable before, during and after treatment; and this effect is magnified when the patient is unclothed, new to chiropractic treatment or the work of a particular chiropractor, or they are being treated in an intimate area. Chiropractors can reduce this feeling of vulnerability by offering a chaperone and gown (and recording a note of the patient’s response) as well as taking the time to ensure you have fully explained the procedure to them and obtained informed consentStandard D4 of the GCC Code states registrants must “Consider the need, during assessments and care, for another person to be present to act as a chaperone; particularly if the assessment or care might be considered intimate or where the patient is a child or a vulnerable adult.”

Excuse me?

I find this unbelievably gross and grossly unbelievable!

It begs, I think, the following questions:

  • What condition requires treatment with a ‘vibrating tool’ near the vagina (I assume they mean vulva)?
  • What condition requires treatment with a ‘vibrating tool’ around the breasts?
  • Is there any reliable evidence?
  • Was informed consent obtained?
  • What precisely did it entail?

About 15 years ago, I was an expert witness in a very similar UK case. The defendant was sent to prison for two years. The GCC is really not fit for purpose. It seems to consistently defend chiropractors rather than do its duty and defend their patients.

My advice to the above-mentioned patient is not to bother with the evidently useless GCC but to initiale criminal proceedings.

The aim of this study was to investigate whether there is a difference in outcome between participants with high compared to low pain self-efficacy (PSE) receiving manual therapy, acupuncture, and electrotherapy.

Participants were stratified into high or low baseline (i) PSE, (ii) shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI), and (iii) did or did not receive the treatment. Whether the effect of treatment differs for people with high compared to low PSE was assessed using the 95% confidence interval of the difference of difference (DoD) at a 5% significance level (p < 0.05).

Treatment was labelled using 3 categories, 2 of which were subcategories of the first

  • “Any passive treatment” – any form of manual therapy and/or acupuncture and/or electrotherapy.
  • “Any manual therapy” – shoulder or spine joint mobilisations, deep transverse frictions, capsular stretches, trigger point therapy, muscle facilitation, or other techniques listed by the treating physiotherapist.
  • “Spinal/shoulder joint mobilisation” – for example, Maitland, Kaltenborn or Mulligan techniques.

To be categorised, treatment must have been delivered by the physiotherapist at least once and may have been delivered in conjunction with other treatments.

Six-month SPADI scores were consistently lower (less pain and disability) for those who did not receive passive treatments compared to those who did (statistically significant less pain and disability in 7 of 24 models). However, DoD was statistically insignificant.

The authors concluded that PSE did not moderate the relationship between treatment and outcome. However, participants who received passive treatment experienced equal or more pain and disability at 6 months compared to those who did not. Results are subject to confounding by indication but do indicate the need for further appropriately designed research.

This analysis suggests that manual therapy, electrotherapy, or acupuncture in addition to advice and exercise offered no improvement in pain or disability at six months, irrespective of PSE. Some patients who receive these treatments experienced more pain and disability at six months compared to those who do not.

I am not aware of compelling evidence that either of these treatments, all of which are often recommended, are effective for shoulder pain, and the results of this new study certainly do not suggest they are. However, as the design of the study was not primarily for this research question, these findings are, of course, merely tentative and need to be investigated further.

Craniosacral therapy (CST) is a widely taught component of osteopathic medical education. It is included in the standard curriculum of osteopathic medical schools, despite controversy surrounding its use. This paper seeks to systematically review randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the clinical effectiveness of CST compared to standard care, sham treatment, or no treatment in adults and children.

A search of Embase, PubMed, and Scopus was conducted on 10/29/2023 with no restriction placed on the date of publication. Additionally, a Google Scholar search was conducted to capture grey literature. Backward citation searching was also implemented. All RCTs employing CST for any clinical outcome were included. Studies not available in English as well as any studies that did not report adequate data for inclusion in a meta-analysis were excluded. Multiple reviewers were used to assess for inclusions, disagreements were settled by consensus. PRISMA guidelines were followed in the reporting of this meta-analysis. Cochrane’s Risk of Bias 2 tool was used to assess for risk of bias. All data were extracted by multiple independent observers. Effect sizes were calculated using a Hedge’s G value (standardized mean difference) and aggregated using random effects models.

The primary study outcome was the effectiveness of CST for selected outcomes as applied to non-healthy adults or children and measured by standardized mean difference effect size. Twenty-four RCTs were included in the final meta-analysis with a total of 1,613 participants. When results were analyzed by primary outcome, no significant effects were found. When secondary outcomes were included, results showed that only Neonate health, structure (g = 0.66, 95% CI [0.30; 1.02], Prediction Interval [-0.73; 2.05]) and Pain, chronic somatic (g = 0.34, 95% CI [0.18; 0.50], Prediction Interval [-0.41; 1.09]) showed statistically significant effects. However, wide prediction intervals and high bias limit the real-world implications of this finding.

The authors concluded that CST did not demonstrate broad significance in this meta-analysis, suggesting limited usefulness in patient care for a wide range of indications.

To this, one should perhaps add that CST is one of those forms of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) that is utterly implausible; there is not conceivable mechanism by which CST might work other than a placebo effects. Therefore, the finding that it is ineffective (positive effects on secondary outcomes are most likely due to residual bias and possibly fraud) is hardly surprising. The most sensible conclusion, in my view, is that CST too ridiculous to merit further research because that would, in effect, be an unethical waste of resources.

Since the introduction of their new Education Standards in March 2023, the General Chiropractic Council (GCC) has been working with chiropractic education providers to support them in implementing the changes to their curricula. Recently, the GCC have stated this:

We expect students to be taught evidence-based practice: integrating individual clinical expertise, the best available evidence from current and credible clinical research, and the values and preferences of patients. Chiropractors are important members of a patient’s healthcare team, and interprofessional approaches enable the best outcomes. Programmes that meet these Standards will teach ethical, professional care and produce competent healthcare professionals who can serve the needs of patients.

These are indeed most encouraging words!

Basically, they are saying that chiropractic education will now have to be solidly based on the principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM) as well as sound medical ethics. Let me spell out what this really means. Chiropractic courses must teach that:

  • The current and credible clinical evidence suggesting that spinal manipulations, the hallmark intervention of chiropractors, are effective is weak for back pain and negative or absent for all other conditions.
  • The current and credible clinical evidence suggests that spinal manipulations, the hallmark intervention of chiropractors, can cause harm which in many instances is serious.
  • The current and credible clinical evidence thus suggests that the risk/benefit balance for spinal manipulations, the hallmark intervention of chiropractors, is not positive.
  • Medical ethics require that competent healthcare professionals inform their patients that spinal manipulations, the hallmark intervention of chiropractors, may not generate more good than harm which is the reason why they cannot employ these therapies.

So, the end of chiropractic in the UK is looming!

Unless, of course, the GCC’s words are not really meant to be translated into action. They could be just window dressing and politically correct bullshit. But that’ s really far too far fetched – after all they come from the GENERAL CHIROPRACTIC COUNCIL, known for its excellent track record, e.g.:

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new blog posts by email.

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.

Archives
Categories