neck-pain
Guest post by Catherine de Jong
Academic circles have reacted with surprise to the announcement on 12 November of the appointment of chiropractor Sidney Rubinstein as endowed professor at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. The website of the Dutch Chiropractors Association (NCA) states:
“On 1 August 2024, Mr. Sidney Rubinstein was appointed professor by special appointment at the chair “Optimizing Management of Musculoskeletal Health” at the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam. In addition to his work as a chiropractor in his own practice, Rubinstein has been working at the Vrije Universiteit for a long time. In addition to treating patients, he has always focused on research and development within chiropractic and musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders.”
Chiropractic is an alternative method of treatment. There is no scientific evidence for clinically relevant positive treatment outcomes. For that reason, chiropractic is not mentioned as a treatment option in the guidelines of general practitioners and medical specialists in the Netherlands. Both the profession and the education are not recognized in the Netherlands. On the website of the NVAO (Dutch-Flemish Academic Organization, www.nvao.net), chiropractic does not appear as an accredited program. There is now plenty of research, especially case reports, on the damage that treatment by a chiropractor can cause, such as cerebral infarctions due to arterial dissection of carotid arteries due to cracking of the neck by chiropractors.
On June 20, 2008, the website of Medisch Contact (magazine of KNMG, Dutch Society of Medical Doctors) stated: “First Dutch chiropractor gets his PhD: Sidney Rubinstein will be the first chiropractor in the Netherlands to obtain a PhD today. Rubinstein states that most of the side effects of chiropractic are harmless and temporary.”
This dissertation, for which Sidney Rubinstein obtained his doctorate at VU Amsterdam, was substandard and was criticized in a letter sent to the same journal. The subsequent correspondence with, among others, the supervisor can be read here. In short, a dissertation that VU Amsterdam cannot be proud of.
The Cochrane database contains two reviews published by Rubinstein on chiropractic, or Spinal Manipulative Therapy (SMT) for acute and chronic back pain, respectively. The conclusion was the same in both cases: In summary, SMT appears to be no better or worse than other existing therapies for patients with acute/chronic low‐back pain. In a 2013 update (Spinal manipulative therapy for acute low back pain: an update of the Cochrane review. Spine 2013; 38(3): E158-77), Rubinstein comes to the same conclusion: SMT is no more effective for acute low back pain than inert interventions, sham SMT or as adjunct therapy. SMT also seems to be no better than other recommended therapies. Rubinstein himself has concluded years ago that chiropractic or SMT has no greater effect than other treatments (like standard physiotherapy), but still it needs to be researched again and again?
At the end of the news item on the NCA’s website, the truth is revealed: the NCA subsidizes half of the chair! The members of this organization (there are now more than 500 chiropractors in the Netherlands) have diligently raised the money for this chair. Since its foundation in 1896 by the grocer/magnetizer D.D. Palmer, chiropractic has had every chance to prove its usefulness, but it has not succeeded. That Rubinstein can change that situation is, of course, extremely unlikely.
This appointment is therefore in fact a political publicity stunt for a still pointless alternative treatment. It will do both the practice of Sidney Rubinstein and that of other chiropractors a lot of good that there is now a professor of chiropractic in the Netherlands.
The other half of the chair is paid for by the university. This means that public money that could have been better spent is now going to be wasted on research into an alternative treatment that we already know is useless, by a researcher who has already shown that there is no added value of treatment by a chiropractor.
A substandard dissertation and a purchased chair, but Sidney Rubinstein can call himself a professor. With the appointment of chiropractor Sidney Rubinstein as endowed professor at VU Amsterdam, the university is jeopardizing its good name and contributing to the unjustified elevation of Sidney Rubenstein’s status and his pointless method of treatment, chiropractic.
Can this appointment really be reconciled with the scientific norms and values that VU Amsterdam wants to uphold?
Spanish colleagues and I just published an article entitled “Is Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment Clinically Superior to Sham or Placebo for Patients with Neck or Low-Back Pain? A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis”. Here is its abstract:
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare whether osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) for somatic dysfunctions was more effective than sham or placebo interventions in improving pain intensity, disability, and quality of life for patients with neck pain (NP) or low-back pain (LBP). Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to September 2024. Studies applying a pragmatic intervention based on the diagnosis of somatic dysfunctions in patients with NP or LBP were included. The methodological quality was assessed with the PEDro scale. The quantitative synthesis was performed using random-effect meta-analysis calculating the standardized mean difference (SMD) with RevMan 5.4. The certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADEPro. Results: Nine studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, and most of them showed no superior effect of OMTs compared to sham or placebo in any clinical outcome. The quantitative synthesis reported no statistically significant differences for pain intensity (SMD = −0.15; −0.38, 0.08; seven studies; 1173 patients) or disability (SMD = −0.09; −0.25, 0.08; six studies; 1153 patients). The certainty of evidence was downgraded to moderate, low, or very low. Conclusions: The findings of this study reveal that OMT is not superior to sham or placebo for improving pain, disability, and quality of life in patients with NP or LBP.
As always, it seems important to stress that our review has several limitations. Firstly, the searches were conducted in the most relevant databases; however, some studies not indexed in these sources may have been missed. Secondly, the diverse NP and LBP diagnosis, as well as the lack of data reported by some studies, complicates the interpretation of the results and may weaken our conclusion. Thirdly, the primary studies pragmatically applied interventions based on diagnoses of various somatic dysfunctions, resulting in a high degree of heterogeneity among the treatments applied.
Despite these limitations, it is fair to say, I think, that OMT is not nearlly as solidly supported by reliable evidence as most osteopaths try to make us believe. In essence, this means that, if you suffer from NP or LBP, you best concult a proper doctor or physiotherapist.
Chiropractic is a complementary medicine that has been growing increasingly in different countries over recent decades. It addresses the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of the neuromusculoskeletal system disorders and their effects on the whole body health.
This review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of chiropractic in the treatment of different diseases. To gather data, scientific electronic databases, such as Cochrane, Medline, Google Scholar, and Scirus were searched and all systematic reviews in the field of chiropractic were obtained. Reviews were included if they were specifically concerned with the effectiveness of chiropractic treatment, included evidence from at least one clinical trial, included randomized studies and focused on a specific disease. The articles were excluded if:
- – they were concerned with a combination of chiropractic and other treatments (not specifically chiropractic treatment);
- – they lacked at least one clinical trial;
- – they lacked at least one randomized study;
- – and they studied chiropractic in the treatment of multiple diseases.
The research data including the article’s first author’s name, type of disease, intervention type, number and types of research used, meta-analysis, number of participants, and overall results of the study, were extracted, studied and analyzed.
Totally, 23 chiropractic systematic reviews were found, and 11 articles met the defined criteria. The results showed the influence of chiropractic on improvement of neck pain, shoulder and neck trigger points, and sport injuries. In the cases of asthma, infant colic, autism spectrum disorder, gastrointestinal problems, fibromyalgia, back pain and carpal tunnel syndrome, there was no conclusive scientific evidence. There is heterogeneity in some of the studies and also limited number of clinical trials in the assessed systematic reviews. Thus, conducting comprehensive studies based on more reliable study designs are highly recommended.
The authors stressed that three points should be emphasized. Firstly, there is a discrepancy between the development of chiropractic in different countries of the world and the quality and quantity of studies regarding the effectiveness and safety of chiropractic in treatment of diseases. Secondly, some of the systematic reviews regarding the effectiveness of chiropractic in treatment of diseases had a minimum quality of research methodology and were not useful for evaluation. Some of the excluded articles are examples of this problem. Finally, a limited number of studies (11 systematic review articles and 10 diseases) had the required criteria and were assessed in the study.
Assessment and analysis of the studies showed the impact of chiropractic on improvement of some upper extremity conditions including shoulder and neck trigger points, neck pain and sport injuries. In the case of asthma, infant colic and other studied diseases, further clinical trials with larger sample sizes and high quality research methodology are recommended.
So, is chiroprctic of proven effectiveness for any disease?
The conditions for which there is tentatively positive evidence (btw: most rely on my research!!!) are arguably not diseases but symptoms of undelying conditions. Therefore, the answer to my question above is:
NO.
This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the effectiveness and safety of manual therapy (MT) interventions compared to oral or topical pain medications in the management of neck pain.
The investigators searched from inception to March 2023, in Cochrane Central Register of Controller Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; EBSCO) for randomized controlled trials that examined the effect of manual therapy interventions for neck pain when compared to oral or topical medication in adults with self-reported neck pain, irrespective of radicular findings, specific cause, and associated cervicogenic headaches. Trials with usual care arms were also included if they prescribed medication as part of the usual care and they did not include a manual therapy component. The authors used the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool to assess the potential risk of bias in the included studies, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach to grade the quality of the evidence.
Nine trials with a total of 779 participants were included in the meta-analysis.
- low certainty of evidence was found that MT interventions may be more effective than oral pain medication in pain reduction in the short-term (Standardized Mean Difference: -0.39; 95% CI -0.66 to -0.11; 8 trials, 676 participants),
- moderate certainty of evidence was found that MT interventions may be more effective than oral pain medication in pain reduction in the long-term (Standardized Mean Difference: −0.36; 95% CI −0.55 to −0.17; 6 trials, 567 participants),
- low certainty evidence that the risk of adverse events may be lower for patients who received MT compared to the ones that received oral pain medication (Risk Ratio: 0.59; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.79; 5 trials, 426 participants).
The authors conluded that MT may be more effective for people with neck pain in both short and long-term with a better safety profile regarding adverse events when compared to patients receiving oral pain medications. However, we advise caution when interpreting our safety results due to the different level of reporting strategies in place for MT and medication-induced adverse events. Future MT trials should create and adhere to strict reporting strategies with regards to adverse events to help gain a better understanding on the nature of potential MT-induced adverse events and to ensure patient safety.
Let’s have a look at the primary studies. Here they are with their conclusions (and, where appropriate, my comments in capital letters):
- For participants with acute and subacute neck pain, spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) was more effective than medication in both the short and long term. However, a few instructional sessions of home exercise with (HEA) resulted in similar outcomes at most time points. EXERCISE WAS AS EFFECTIVE AS SMT
- Oral ibuprofen (OI) pharmacologic treatment may reduce pain intensity and disability with respect to neural mobilization (MNNM and CLG) in patients with CP during six weeks. Nevertheless, the non-existence of between-groups ROM differences and possible OI adverse effects should be considered. MEDICATION WAS BETTER THAN MT
- It appears that both treatment strategies (usual care + MT vs usual care) can have equivalent positive influences on headache complaints. Additional studies with larger study populations are needed to draw firm conclusions. Recommendations to increase patient inflow in primary care trials, such as the use of an extended network of participating physicians and of clinical alert software applications, are discussed. MT DOES NOT IMPROVE OUTCOMES
- The consistency of the results provides, in spite of several discussed shortcomings of this pilot study, evidence that in patients with chronic spinal pain syndromes spinal manipulation, if not contraindicated, results in greater improvement than acupuncture and medicine. THIS IS A PILOT STUDY, A TRIAL TESTING FEASIBILITY, NOT EFFECTIVENESS
- The consistency of the results provides, despite some discussed shortcomings of this study, evidence that in patients with chronic spinal pain, manipulation, if not contraindicated, results in greater short-term improvement than acupuncture or medication. However, the data do not strongly support the use of only manipulation, only acupuncture, or only nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs for the treatment of chronic spinal pain. The results from this exploratory study need confirmation from future larger studies.
- In daily practice, manual therapy is a favorable treatment option for patients with neck pain compared with physical therapy or continued care by a general practitioner.
- Short-term results (at 7 weeks) have shown that MT speeded recovery compared with GP care and, to a lesser extent, also compared with PT. In the long-term, GP treatment and PT caught up with MT, and differences between the three treatment groups decreased and lost statistical significance at the 13-week and 52-week follow-up. MT IS NOT SUPERIOR [SAME TRIAL AS No 6]
- In this randomized clinical trial, for patients with chronic neck pain, Chuna manual therapy was more effective than usual care in terms of pain and functional recovery at 5 weeks and 1 year after randomization. These results support the need to consider recommending manual therapies as primary care treatments for chronic neck pain.
- In patients with chronic spinal pain syndromes, spinal manipulation, if not contraindicated, may be the only treatment modality of the assessed regimens that provides broad and significant long-term benefit. SAME TRIAL AS No 5
- An impairment-based manual physical therapy and exercise (MTE) program resulted in clinically and statistically significant short- and long-term improvements in pain, disability, and patient-perceived recovery in patients with mechanical neck pain when compared to a program comprising advice, a mobility exercise, and subtherapeutic ultrasound. THIS STUDY DID NOT TEST MT ALONE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED
I cannot bring myself to characterising this as an overall positive result for MT; anyone who can is guilty of wishful thinking, in my view. The small differences in favor of MT that (some of) the trials report have little to do with the effectiveness of MT itself. They are almost certainly due to the fact that none of these studies were placebo-controlled and double blind (even though this would clearly be possible). In contrast to popping a pill, MT involves extra attention, physical touch, empathy, etc. These factors easily suffice to bring about the small differences that some studies report.
It follows that the main conclusion of the authors of the review should be modified:
There is no compelling evidence to show that MT is more effective for people with neck pain in both short and long-term when compared to patients receiving oral pain medications.
Cervical spondylosis is a chronic degenerative process of the cervical spine characterized by pain in neck, degenerative changes in intervertebral disc and osteophyte formation. The present study was aimed at evaluating the effect of wet cupping (Ḥijāma Bish Sharṭ) in the pain management of cervical spondylosis.
This Open, randomized, clinical study was conducted on 44 patients.
- Subjects in the test group (n = 22) received a series of three-staged wet cupping treatment, performed on 0, 7th and 14th day.
- Subjects in the control group (n = 22) received 12 sittings of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS): 6 sittings per week for two weeks.
The outcomes were assessed with the help of VAS, Neck Disability Index (NDI) and Cervical range of motion.
Intra group comparison in test group from baseline to 21st day were found highly significant (p < 0.001) in terms of VAS, NDI, Flexion, Extension and Left rotation score. While in Right rotation, Left rotation and Left lateral flexion score were found moderately significant (p < 0.01). Statistically significant difference was observed between two groups at 21st day in VAS scale, NDI, and Cervical range of motion score (p < 0.001).
The authors concluded that Ḥijāma Bish Sharṭ was found better in the management of pain due to cervical spondylosis than TENS. It can be concluded that Ḥijāma Bish Sharṭ may a better option for the pain management of cervical spondylosis.
Wet cupping is the use of a vacuum cup applied to the skin which has previously been lacerated. It draws blood and can thus be seen as a form of blood letting. It has been used in various cultures for the treatment of joint pain and many other conditions since antiquity.
The authors point out that, in Unani medicine, it is believed to reduce pain and other symptoms by diverting and evacuating the causative pathological humours (akhlāṭ-e-fasida). Galen (Jalinoos) mentioned wet cupping as a very useful modality in evacuating the thick humours (akhlāṭ-e-Ghaleez) (Nafeesi, 1954; Qamri, 2008). Wet cupping works on the principle of diversion and evacuation of morbid matter (imala wa tanqiya-i-mawād-i-fasida). It opens the pores of the skin, enhances the blood circulation, nourishes the affected area with fresh blood, improves the eliminative function and facilitates the evacuation of morbid matter from the body.
There are several studies of wet cupping, most of which are as flawed as the one above. This new trial has several limitations, e.g.:
- It makes no attempt to control for placebo effects which could well be more prominent for wet cupping than for TENS.
- It did not inhibit the influence of verbal or non-verbal communications between therapists and patients which are likely to influence the results.
- The sample size is far too small, particularly as the study was designed as an equivalence study.
But some might say that my arguments a petty and argue that, regardless of a flimsy study, wet cupping is still worth a try. I would disagree – not because of the flaws of this study, nor the implausibility of the long-obsolete assumptions that underpin the therapy, but because wet cupping is associaated with infections of the skin lacerations which occasionally can be serious.
This study tested whether trigger point acupuncture (TrPA) is beneficial for office workers who have reduced job performance (presenteeism) due to chronic neck and shoulder pain (katakori).
A 4-week single-center randomized clinical trial was conducted on 20 eligible female office workers with chronic neck and shoulder pain of at least 3-month duration. The control group implemented only workplace-recommended presenteeism measures, whereas the intervention group received TrPA up to 4 times per month in addition to the presenteeism measures recommended by each workplace. The major outcome measure was the relative presenteeism score on the World Health Organization Health and Work Performance (WHO-HPQ). The secondary outcome measures were pain intensity (numerical rating scale), absolute presenteeism (WHO-HPQ), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; HADS), catastrophic thoughts related to pain (Pain Catastrophizing Scale; PCS), and sleep (Athens Insomnia Scale; AIS).
All 9 cases in the intervention group and 11 cases in the control group were analyzed. TrPA up to 4 times per month reduced the intensity of neck and shoulder pain by 20% (P < .01, d = 1.65) and improved labor productivity (relative presenteeism value) by 0.25 (P < .01, d = 1.33) compared with the control group over 1 month. No significant differences were observed between the 2 groups in terms of absolute presenteeism score, HADS, PCS, or AIS.
The authors concluded that these results suggest that regular intervention with TrPA may be effective in the relative presenteeism score before and after the intervention and the degree of neck and shoulder pain over 28 days compared with the control group.
Sure, TrPA may be effective.
But is it?
I thought the trial was aimed at answering that question!
But it didn’t!
Why not?
Because, as we have discussed ad nauseam on this blog, the A+B versus B study design cannot answer it. On the contrary, it will always generate a positive result without determining whether the treatment or a nonspecific (placebo) effect caused the outcome (which, of course, is the reason why this study design is so popular in SCAM research).
In view of this, I suggest to re-formulate the conclusions as follows:
The study suggests that the researchers were ill-informed when designing it. Therefore, the findings show nothing of value.
The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of conservative interventions compared with other interventions, placebo/sham interventions, or no intervention on disability, pain, function, quality of life, and psychological impact in adults with cervical radiculopathy (CR), a painful condition caused by the compression or irritation of the nerves that supply the shoulders, arms and hands.
A multidisciplinary team autors searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO from inception to June 15, 2022 to identify studies that were:
- randomized trials,
- had at least one conservative treatment arm,
- diagnosed participants with CR through confirmatory clinical examination and/or diagnostic tests.
Studies were appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and the quality of the evidence was rated using the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.
Of the 2561 records identified, 59 trials met the inclusion criteria (n = 4108 participants). Due to clinical and statistical heterogeneity, the findings were synthesized narratively.
There is very-low certainty evidence supporting the use of:
- acupuncture,
- prednisolone,
- cervical manipulation,
- low-level laser therapy
for pain and disability in the immediate to short-term, and
- thoracic manipulation,
- low-level laser therapy
for improvements in cervical range of motion in the immediate term.
There is low to very-low certainty evidence for multimodal interventions, providing inconclusive evidence for pain, disability, and range of motion.
There is inconclusive evidence for pain reduction after conservative management compared with surgery, rated as very-low certainty.
The authors concluded that there is a lack of high-quality evidence, limiting our ability to make any meaningful conclusions. As the number of people with CR is expected to increase, there is an urgent need for future research to help address these gaps.
I agree!
Yet, to patients suffering from CR, this is hardly constructive advice. What should they do vis a vis such disappointing evidence?
They might speak to a orthopedic surgeon; but often there is no indication for an operation. What then?
Patients are bound to try some of the conservative options – but which one?
- Acupuncture?
- Prednisolone?
- Cervical manipulation,?
- Low-level laser therapy?
My advice is this: be patient – the vast majority of cases resolves spontaneously regardless of therapy – and, if you are desperate, try any of them except cervical manipulation which is burdened with the risk of serious complications and often makes things worse.
This systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) estimated the benefits and harms of cervical spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for treating neck pain. The authors searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, Chiropractic Literature Index bibliographic databases, and grey literature sources, up to June 6, 2022.
RCTs evaluating SMT compared to guideline-recommended and non-recommended interventions, sham SMT, and no intervention for adults with neck pain were eligible. Pre-specified outcomes included pain, range of motion, disability, health-related quality of life.
A total of 28 RCTs could be included. There was very low to low certainty evidence that SMT was more effective than recommended interventions for improving pain at short-term (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.66; confidence interval [CI] 0.35 to 0.97) and long-term (SMD 0.73; CI 0.31 to 1.16), and for reducing disability at short-term (SMD 0.95; CI 0.48 to 1.42) and long-term (SMD 0.65; CI 0.23 to 1.06). Only transient side effects were found (e.g., muscle soreness).
The authors concluded that there was very low certainty evidence supporting cervical SMT as an intervention to reduce pain and improve disability in people with neck pain.
Harms cannot be adequately investigated on the basis of RCT data. Firstly, because much larger sample sizes would be required for this purpose. Secondly, RCTs of spinal manipulation very often omit reporting adverse effects (as discussed repeatedly on this bolg). If we extend our searches beyond RCTs, we find many cases of serious harm caused by neck manipulations (also as discussed repeatedly on this bolg). Therefore, the conclusion of this review should be corrected:
Low certainty evidence exists supporting cervical SMT as an intervention to reduce pain and improve disability in people with neck pain. The evidence of harm is, however, substantial. It follows that the risk/benefit ratio is not positive. Cervical SMT should therefore be discouraged.
In a video, Mr.Darkmoore speaks from a hospital bed and says the cause behind his visit to the emergency room stemmed from a chiropractor’s work on him. Three days ago, he had a ringing in his ear due to a long-term condition he knew as tinnitus. Thus, he decided to visit a chiropractor. “I figured $100 to a chiro, let them adjust a few things, if all else fails, I’ll go to a doctor,” explains Darkmoore.
This $100 visit led to several other complications and doctor’s bills worth thousands of dollars. The day after he was treated by the chiropractor, he experienced a headache that eventually led to dizzy spells. He decided to visit the emergency room where a CT scan was ordered which showed that the chiropractor had dissected an artery in his neck.
Next, Darkmoore was put on blood thinners to avoid blood clots that could result in a stroke or worse. Darkmoore explains that he will be on two blood thinners for the next three months to prevent clotting. If the dissection heals partially, he says he will need to take aspirin every day for the rest of his life. If it doesn’t heal, he claims that he will need surgery.
Many viewers of the video claimed they have had the same “chiropractor gone wrong” experience as Darkmoore.
- “Wow. How scary. I had a similar thing happen to me. Extremely bad headache after going one time. Haven’t gone since,” one commenter wrote.
- “I’m so sorry this happened to u,” another user echoed. “My chiropractor also caused an injury which required emergency surgery & I have permanent damage. I’m glad u survived.”
Darkmore captioned his last update video, “I appreciate the thoughts and prayers. Hopefully, I’ll be okay after 3 months of recovery.”
__________________
Let’s hope that he is correct and that he will make a speedy and full recovery.
Of course, chiros will queue up to stress that important details are missing in this case report. To them, I would merely say this:
THERE IS NO GOOD EVIDENCE THAT NECK MANIPULATIONS BRING ANY BENEFIT AND QUITE A BIT OF EVIDENCE THAT THEY CAN CAUSE SERIOUS HARM.
SO, WHY NOT JUST STOP OFFERING THE PROCEDURE?
Cervical spondylosis (CS) is a general term for wear and tear affecting the spinal disks in the neck. As these disks age, they shrink and signs of osteoarthritis can develop, including bony projections along the edges of bones (bone spurs). CS is very common and worsens with age. About 85% of people over 60 are affected by cervical spondylosis. For most of them, it causes no symptoms. When symptoms do occur, non-surgical treatments often are effective. I think there are not many so-called alternative treatments that are not being promoted as effective for CS – often with the support of some lousy clinical trials. Homeopathy does not seem to be an exception.
This trial attempted evaluating the efficacy of individualized homeopathic medicines (IHMs) against placebos in the treatment of CS.
A 3-month, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at the Organon of Medicine outpatient department of the National Institute of Homoeopathy, India. Patients were randomized to receive either IHMs (n = 70) or identical-looking placebos (n = 70) in the mutual context of concomitant conservative and standard physiotherapeutic care. Primary outcome measures were 0-10 Numeric Rating Scales (NRSs) for pain, stiffness, numbness, tingling, weakness, and vertigo, and the secondary outcome was the Neck Disability Index (NDI), measured at baseline and every month until 3 months. The intention-to-treat sample was analyzed to detect group differences and effect sizes.
Overall, improvements were clinically significant and higher in the IHM group than in the placebo group, but group differences were statistically nonsignificant with small effect sizes (all p > 0.05, two-way repeated measure analysis of variance). After 2 months of time points, improvements observed in the IHM group were significantly higher than placebo on a few occasions (e.g., pain NRS: p < 0.001; stiffness NRS: p = 0.024; weakness NRS: p = 0.003). Sulfur (n = 21; 15%) was the most frequently prescribed medication. No harm, unintended effects, or any serious adverse events were reported from either group.
The authors concluded that an encouraging but nonsignificant direction of effect was elicited favoring IHMs against placebos in the treatment of CS.
I agree that it is encouraging that Indian homeopaths have recently dared to publish also negative findings! However, I do not agree that the findings are encouraging in the sense that they indicate anything other than that homeopathy is a placebo therapy.
Unfortunately, I cannot access the full article without paying for it. Thus I am unable to provide detailed criticism of this study – sorry.
