|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 11/24/2004 : 14:43:41 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal wrote:quote:
The problem is, as the 1988 NEJM article points out, that none of the treatments seem to do more than the placebo of handing a person a booklet on back exercises.
Okay, here's my problem: I don't accept that a booklet describing back exercises is a valid placebo, since such exercises were "prescribed" for my wife as a worthwhile method of home treatment for her back problems. Comparing one treatment to another treatment is not the same as comparing one treatment to a placebo.
Until someone comes along with a study comparing physical therapy, chiropractic, osteopathy (not the same as chiropractic - osteopaths are equivalent to MDs in many states), drugs, surgery and/or booklets to a truly effect-free form of therapy, it is impossible to state that any of them are equivalent to a placebo. The fact that the less-invasive of them appear to work equally well is not an indication that none of them work at all. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2004 : 00:09:12 [Permalink]
|
I'll have to do more searching to satisfy that level of evidence. Personally, I'd rather see better evidence it worked than waiting for more evidence it doesn't.
And the problem of endorsing a treatment that is based on hit or miss indications and therapies? In other words, have chiropractors defined which treatments work and for which kinds of back pain? Or do they just treat everyone and hope some of them get better? Or are you saying everyone with back pain can use an 'adjustment'?
If a person has 'adjustments', can the next chiropractor tell 10 minutes later? Is there any physiological basis that explain what these 'adjustments' are changing? I did my homework, Dave, care to do some to answer my concerns? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2004 : 00:39:16 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal, I'm not claiming that any chiropractor can identify whether someone's had an "adjustment" or not, and I'm not sure that "rational" chiropractors would make such a claim, either. After all, are there any reliable MDs in the world who would claim that they'd be able to tell if a sprained ankle had been bandaged an hour before or not? I don't think so. Questions about being able to detect prior adjustments, therefore, seem to me to be a strawman argument.
I think - though I hope I'm wrong - that you're basing your concerns upon the idea that Dr. Barrett and others are arguing that any chiropractor can treat back pain as well as any physical therapist or any booklet of back exercises. But that's simply not the case.
I, too, would much rather see better positive evidence than anything else. But what we've got right now suggests that for low back pain (which doesn't reasonably include the neck adjustments you're fond of refering to), rational chiropractors are no worse than physical therapy, and many patients would rather avoid "the mainstream." If such hit-or-miss therapies (and again: I don't know the chiropractic state-of-the-art) work as well as the mainstream, then yes, whoever would prefer chiropractic treatment for low back back should go ahead and see what the NCAFH calls a "scientific chiropractor" in order to minimize risk and maximize benefit.
Again, what I am disputing is your original and general claim that chiropractic works no better than placebo. I am not arguing that everyone with low back pain should see a chiropractor, especially not instead of a mainstream orthopedist. I am also and most assuredly not arguing for any sort of subluxation theory or for the ability of anyone to "detect" a prior "adjustment" (however defined).
If you can find a study which compares any one of the more-or-less equal treatments to a true placebo, and finds them equivalent in terms of benefits, I will not only agree with you that chiropractic is no better than placebo, but will also see what I can do about suing my wife's orthopedists for insurance fraud (since such evidence would show that the physical therapy and booklet she received are no better than placebo).
Does any of the above answer any of your concerns? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2004 : 03:57:44 [Permalink]
|
The identification of previous adjustment is not the same as your example of the sprained ankle. The spine is not being adjusted as therapy like massage, it is being adjusted to put it 'back in alignment'.
Two doctors, while not agreeing with every diagnosis would both be able to say swelling was or was not present, and the bones were or were not broken.
Actually, I'm not a fan of most medical interventions for back pain. For example, ruptured discs heal spontaneously 95% of the time. But this thread was on chiropractors, not whether other alternatives are effective.
I accept your argument the available studies do not have a perfect placebo/control. But sham treatments as placebo/control are not the easiest to devise in a study. Sometimes you have to draw a conclusion on the best available evidence.
In your wife's situation, did she just get the booklet? Now you are adding PT. PT was not included with the booklet in the study reported on by the NEJM.
Again, I ask, where in these reports do you find evidence for benefit from chiropractic treatment? The main evidence is people report feeling better. But in terms of objective outcomes, no benefit is observed. Feeling better but with no measurable improvement is the definition of placebo benefit if I am not mistaken.
quote:
I think - though I hope I'm wrong - that you're basing your concerns upon the idea that Dr. Barrett and others are arguing that any chiropractor can treat back pain as well as any physical therapist or any booklet of back exercises. But that's simply not the case.
You are indeed wrong about my bases for disputing Dr Barrett's position. You can select the best of the best, I'd still make the same arguments. The theory of the practice is based on nonsense. Physiologically, the claim that one's spine is being aligned is false. (And maybe I should have placed more emphasis on this argument earlier in my posts.) No objective improvement is seen in study after study. I do not value promoting a therapy that has only subjective benefit if the practice promotes following non-evidence based medicine, which I think this does.
I would never discourage a patient from seeing a chiropractor if they felt it was helping them. However, I would never recommend a chiropractor to a patient as an option worth trying. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2004 : 10:10:42 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal wrote:quote:
The identification of previous adjustment is not the same as your example of the sprained ankle. The spine is not being adjusted as therapy like massage, it is being adjusted to put it 'back in alignment'.
And the "rational" chiropractors reject the idea of subluxations. Unless you've got evidence that they're claiming what you're claiming they're claiming, I don't see what you're doing except attacking a strawman.quote:
I accept your argument the available studies do not have a perfect placebo/control. But sham treatments as placebo/control are not the easiest to devise in a study. Sometimes you have to draw a conclusion on the best available evidence.
And the best available evidence seems to me to say that rationally-practiced chiropractic is as good as other non-invasive therapies.quote:
Now you are adding PT. PT was not included with the booklet in the study reported on by the NEJM.
Which one are you reading?A comparison of methods of treating low back pain supported by the federal Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) found no significant differences in outcomes among patients who were either treated by chiropractic spinal manipulation, a popular form of physical therapy called the McKenzie method, or simply given an educational booklet and not treated. I don't know what kind of PT that is, exactly, and I wouldn't claim that all PT is equally good for back pain, but at least one form of PT has, indeed, been included in a study along with booklets.quote:
You can select the best of the best, I'd still make the same arguments. The theory of the practice is based on nonsense.
And "mainstream" doctors once thought things which would make your skin crawl, too. Practices evolve. Why do you refuse to accept that some chiropractors reject the 100-year old Palmer "theory?"quote:
Physiologically, the claim that one's spine is being aligned is false. (And maybe I should have placed more emphasis on this argument earlier in my posts.)
Is there any evidence that rational chiropractors make that claim? How many times do I need to emphasize that?quote:
No objective improvement is seen in study after study.
I don't see how you get that from this:Among patients with acute low back pain, the outcomes are similar whether they receive care from primary care practitioners, chiropractors, or orthopedic surgeons. Unless you're saying that PCPs, chiropractors, and orthopedic surgeons all fail to create an objective improvement in any patient.
Now, what would be interesting is to see a study of just rationally-practicing chiropractors versus some other therapy, since the NEJM studies all appeared to use randomly-selected chiropractors, thus necessarily including some loons who would drag the "average" down through improper care. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
fyslee
New Member
1 Post |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2004 : 03:02:38 [Permalink]
|
I looked at the web sites of some Chiropractic Colleges in the US, Dave. List The ones that listed information on chiropractic treatment all describe subluxation theory of health and disease. A few had no info and I went to course descriptions where I again found the theory of disease and subluxation in the curriculum.
There were a couple which had a chiropractic college along with other alternative healing practice departments. Those were less likely to mention subluxation anywhere on their websites that I could find, but they also did not come out and state their programs had passed the original chiropractic theory and moved on to a more refined approach, though they did stress evidence based medicine as an overall philosophy.
If the original theory is being taught in the colleges, how do you claim there are rational different chiropractors out there? Do you claim a few chiropractors only treat pain or whatever, and they only use specific spinal manipulations or whatever, and they have tossed the rest of their education out the window because they found science? In that case, I don't think you can call them chiropractors. And they would still be treating in the dark so to speak if they have yet to define which patients with which conditions and with which manipulations they can treat. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 11/27/2004 03:09:43 |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2004 : 07:37:34 [Permalink]
|
Let me reiterate here what Dr. Cherkin (and I worked in his department for two years)implied when he spoke to us:
Perhaps both chiropractic and PT offer similar benefits because they give patients a sense of control over their pain AND/OR because patients feel better when a provider (any provider) offers care/nurturing/hands-on therapy AND/OR some other or combination of other not-understood factors are at work in healing. He stressed that the study actually posed more questions than it answered.
I was in chronic pain after a car accident a few years ago. I felt the worst when felt I had no control over the pain. It made me nutty and angry and I couldn't sleep at night. I felt depressed and helpless. Going through PT helped me feel more in control of the pain; whether that was an illusion (placebo?), I have no idea.
Our minds and emotions DO play a role in healing. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/27/2004 : 21:33:23 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal wrote:quote:
I looked at the web sites of some Chiropractic Colleges in the US, Dave. List The ones that listed information on chiropractic treatment all describe subluxation theory of health and disease. A few had no info and I went to course descriptions where I again found the theory of disease and subluxation in the curriculum.
Obviously. The Web site you visited not only emphasizes the Palmer school, but has a large variety of radiological resources, without any suggestion that most patients do not require X-rays. This indicates that the site is not likely to list chiropractic schools which disagree with the majority of Palmer's philosophy of subluxations, just as I'm unlikely to find resources for liberals at the Web site of the Republican National Committee.quote:
If the original theory is being taught in the colleges, how do you claim there are rational different chiropractors out there?
I only claim that they claim it. For examples:For the record, legitimate chiropractors believe in the germ theory, and that subluxations are a word that give us the shivers.
— eklein
Totally frustrated with the chiropractic profession, I wrote Inside Chiropractic: A Patient's Guide (Prometheus Books 1999), updating my views on the good and the bad in chiropractic. I hope this book will help protect consumers as well as stimulate reform of the chiropractic profession. Because of the nature of chiropractic, however, and the subluxation theory that sustains chiropractic as a "separate and distinct profession," change is slow and painful. Some observers doubt that chiropractic will ever change sufficiently to earn recognition as a properly limited specialty, forcing it to remain on the sidelines as an "alternative" method. Patients seeking chiropractic manipulation for back pain will have to learn how to make an informed choice if they are to avoid inappropriate treatment by chiropractors.
— Samuel Homola, DC
I have been practicing chiropractic for 19 years. I have heard Dr. Barrett's name mentioned many times over the years and would shutter to repeat all that I've heard. I want to say thanks for your work, what I have seen of it. I ran across your site today and read about Life College losing its accreditation, etc. Sometimes, when I see and hear this kind on crap, I regret ever becomming a DC. I have always practiced ethically and have a good repuation amongst local professionals. There are good DC's out here that actually have no idea what a 'subluxation' is. I never use the term. I often ask my 'straight' collegues that base their whole belief system in chiropractic on DD Palmer's tale of curing old Harvey from deafness..."how many deaf people have you ever cured?". The answer is always the same...'0'. I then ask "what DC can you mention that has done so?". Again the same answer. I then ask "don't you think that if spinal adjustments cured deafness in Harvey Lillard.... at least one of us....in 19 years...could duplicate the feat? It's amazing isn't Anyway, I just wanted to say that there's 1 DC out here that isn't a crazy fanatic that believes anything and everything he hears.
— Anonymous chiropractor
Peter J. Modde, D.C., practiced chiropractic near Seattle, Washington, for about 20 years. A 1964 graduate of Palmer College, he became president of his county chiropractic society and chairman of his state society's public relations committee. Somewhere along the line, however, he concluded that chiropractic theory was a delusional system and that chiropractors were not adequately trained in diagnosis. He began limiting his practice to physical therapy of patients that had been evaluated by medical doctors. He also persuaded medical doctors in Seattle to offer a special 300-hour course in diagnosis. When his fellow chiropractors rejected this idea, he became thoroughly disillusioned, began publicizing his views, and offered expert testimony in malpractice cases. Prior to that time, suing a chiropractor was very difficult because it was almost impossible to find a chiropractor willing to testify against a colleague. Modde not only stepped on chiropractic toes by denouncing subluxation theory as a delusion, he also accused his colleagues of incompetence and threatened their financial well-being. For this, he was expelled from his state and national associations, his malpractice insurance was canceled, and an unsuccessful attempt was made to revoke his license. He continued his reformist activities for about ten years but finally switched careers into real estate. His book, Chiropractic Malpractice, describes his experiences with more than a hundred cases. This article appears to be the first one by a chiropractor published by a mainstream medical journal. Although the quality of chiropractic care has improved considerably since this article was published, chiropractic philosophy remains a millstone around the profession's neck.
— Malpractice Is an Inevitable Result of Chiropractic Philosophy and Training (1979) And then there are these 55 chiropractors (mostly practicing) who have endorsed Chirobase's guidelines, which includes the text:My practice is limited to the care of musculoskeletal problems. I may also counsel patients about lifestyle improvements and give practical science-based tips about the management of common ailments. My approach to back pain parallels the AHCPR Clinical Practice Guidelines that lie within the scope of chiropractic. For medical problems outside my scope, I refer patients to appropriate physicians.
I publicly endorse immunization, fluoridation, and other standard public health measures. I reject biotheistic notions that "subluxations" and/or "nerve interference" are the cause or underlying cause of disease. I do not make claims about curing diseases... Seriously, email eklein and ask him how much of his chiropractic education he rejects in his current practice, or at least find out if his college is listed at the site you posted.quote:
Do you claim a few chiropractors only treat pain or whatever, and they only use specific spinal manipulations or whatever, and they have tossed the rest of their education out the window because they found science? In that case, I don't think you can call them chiropractors.
In my searches around Chirobase and elsewhere tonight, I saw somewhere a statistic (from 1980 or so) which said that only 7.2% of patients visit a chiropractor for something other than a back or muscle problem. In other words, when the public hears the word 'chiropractor', the vast majority think "back specialist." So, I'll ask you: if the "ratio |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2004 : 01:23:30 [Permalink]
|
| I haven't had time to read your post Dave, but the site I went to was just a list of all chiropractic colleges in the US. There were 16. I checked all that had a web site. One or two didn't. So I don't know what you are talking about all of them being related to Palmer. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2004 : 09:00:44 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal wrote:quote:
So I don't know what you are talking about all of them being related to Palmer.
Nevermind that part. I made a mistake. Respond to the rest of my post at your leisure. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
eklein
New Member
Canada
4 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2004 : 21:26:33 [Permalink]
|
Hi beskeptical,
I fail to see how you can say that chiropractic is nothing beyond placebo. Firstly, in any of the major meta analysis published, spinal manipulation, along with NSAIDs were given the highest level of evidence (a grade of B) for the treatment of back pain. There are well over 45 papers (and counting) on the use of SMT for MSK dysfunction. SMT was actually used back in ancient times, and was popularized during WWI by its effectiveness in treating injury due to severe exercise in soldiers. Based on the evidence, 11 of 15 national guidelines of industrialized countries favor chiropractic as a first line treatment. A recent Workers Compensation Board study in the province of Alberta found patients under chiropractic care got back to work 11 days faster on average than other treatments.
The theory that spinal nerves are compressed by out of place vertebrae, is false and without merit. However, increasing segment motion through manipulation is.
The science is there. If your only beef is with subby's (subluxation based chiro's), then I don't care, but you absolutely cannot extrapolate the same criticism to evidenced-based chiropractors.
Dr. E. Klein
Hampton Chiropractic |
|
|
|
eklein
New Member
Canada
4 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2004 : 21:32:37 [Permalink]
|
beskeptical,
I just reread your post. You want references, here you go...
This is 60 of 375 that come up with "chiropractic AND low back pain" search at www.pubmed.com. By the way, your quackwatch people have NEVER published a single piece of literature in a peer-reviewed indexed journal.
Efficacy of preventive spinal manipulation for chronic low-back pain and related disabilities: a preliminary study.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2004 Oct;27(8):509-14.
PMID: 15510094 [PubMed - in process]
3: Leboeuf-Yde C, Gronstvedt A, Borge JA, Lothe J, Magnesen E, Nilsson O, Rosok G, Stig LC, Larsen K. Related Articles, Links
The nordic back pain subpopulation program: demographic and clinical predictors for outcome in patients receiving chiropractic treatment for persistent low"back pain.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2004 Oct;27(8):493-502.
PMID: 15510092 [PubMed - in process]
4: Haas M, Groupp E, Kraemer DF. Related Articles, Links
Dose-response for chiropractic care of chronic low back pain.
Spine J. 2004 Sep-Oct;4(5):574-83.
PMID: 15363431 [PubMed - in process]
5: Hoiriis KT, Pfleger B, McDuffie FC, Cotsonis G, Elsangak O, Hinson R, Verzosa GT. Related Articles, Links
A randomized clinical trial comparing chiropractic adjustments to muscle relaxants for subacute low back pain.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2004 Jul-Aug;27(6):388-98.
PMID: 15319761 [PubMed - in process]
6: Sherman KJ, Cherkin DC, Connelly MT, Erro J, Savetsky JB, Davis RB, Eisenberg DM. Related Articles, Links
Complementary and alternative medical therapies for chronic low back pain: What treatments are patients willing to try?
BMC Complement Altern Med. 2004 Jul 19;4(1):9.
PMID: 15260884 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
7: Bird S. Related Articles, Links
A pain in the back case.
Aust Fam Physician. 2004 Jun;33(6):457-8.
PMID: 15253611 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
8: Weiland T, Wessel K. Related Articles, Links
[Therapy of back pain: what is evidence-based?]
Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr. 2004 Jun;72(6):344-50. Review. German.
PMID: 15211399 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
9: Alcantara J, Plaugher G, Elbert R, Gatterman B. Related Articles, Links
Chiropractic care of a patient with low back pain associated with subluxations and a Malgaigne-type pelvic fracture.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2004 Jun;27(5):358-65.
PMID: 15195043 [PubMed - in process]
10: Boal RW, Gillette RG. Related Articles, Links
Central neuronal plasticity, low back pain and spinal manipulative therapy.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2004 Jun;27(5):314-26.
PMID: 15195039 [PubMed - in process]
11: Bernstein E, Carey TS, Garrett JM. Related Articles, Links
The use of muscle relaxant medications in acute low back pain.
Spine. 2004 Jun 15;29(12):1346-51.
PMID: 15187636 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
12: Killinger LZ. Related Articles, Links
Chiropractic and geriatrics: a review of the training, role, and scope of chiropractic in caring for aging patients.
Clin Geriatr Med. 2004 May;20(2):223-35.
PMID: 15182879 [PubMed - in process]
13: Diez F. Related Articles, Links
Chiropractic management of patients with bilateral congenital hip dislocation with chronic low back and leg pain.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2004 May;27(4):E6.
PMID: 15148469 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
14: McLean ID. Related Articles, Links
Chiropractic management of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome: a report of two cases.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2004 May;27(4):281; author reply 281-2. No abstract available.
PMID: 15148468 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
15: Colloca CJ, Keller TS. Related Articles, Links
Active trunk extensor contributions to dynamic posteroanterior lumbar spinal stiffness.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2004 May;27(4):229-37.
PMID: 15148461 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
16: Alcantara J, Plaugher G, Elbert RA, Cherachanko D, Konlande JE, Casselman AM. Related Articles, Links
Chiropractic care of a geriatric patient with an acute fracture-subluxation of the eighth thoracic vertebra.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2004 Mar-Apr;27(3):E4.
PMID: 15129206 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
17: Hansen D, Belmont L, Fairbanks V, Fairbanks R, Jones G, Hickman P, Coleman RR. Related Articles, Links
Views on radiography use for patients with acute low back pain among chiropractors in an Ontario community.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2004 Mar-Apr;27(3):218-9; author reply 219. No abstract available.
PMID: 15129204 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
18: Verbeeck A. Related Articles, Links
Bone metastases from breast cancer: guidelines for diagnosis.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2004 Mar-Apr;27(3):211-5. Review.
PMID: 15129203 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
19: Oliphant D. Related Articles, Links
Safety of spinal manipulation in the treatment of lumbar disk herniations: a systematic review and risk assessment.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2004 Mar-Apr;27(3):197-210. Review.
PMID: 15129202 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
20: Ammendolia C, Hogg-Johnson S, Pennick V, Glazier R, Bombardier C. Related Articles, Links
Implementing evidence-based guidelines for radiography in acute low back pain: a pilot study in a chiropractic community.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2004 Mar-Apr;27(3):170-9.
PMID: 15129199 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
A practice-based study of patients with acute and chronic low back pain attending primary care and chiropractic physicians: two-week to 48-month follow-up.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2004 Mar-Apr;27(3):160-9.
PMID: 15129198 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
22: Beffa R, Mathews R. Related Articles, Links
Does the adjustment cavitate the targeted joint? An investigation into the location of cavitation sounds.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2004 Feb;27(2):e2.
PMID: 14970817 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
23: Lisi AJ, Cooperstein R, Morschhauser E. Related Articles, Links
An exploratory study of provocation testing with padded wedges: can prone blocking demonstrate a directional preference?
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2004 Feb;27(2):103-8.
PMID: 14970811 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
24: Dunk NM, Chung YY, Compton DS, Callaghan JP. Related Articles, Links
The reliability of quantifying upright standing postures as a baseline diagnostic clinical tool.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2004 Feb;27(2):91-6.
PMID: 14970809 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
25: Feuerstein M, Marcus SC, Huang GD. Related Articles, Links
National trends in nonoperative care for nonspecific back pain.
Spine J. 2004 Jan-Feb;4(1):56-63.
PMID: 14749194 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
26: Caso ML. Related Articles, Links
Evaluation of Chapman's neurolymphatic reflexes via applied kinesiology: a case report of low back pain and congenital intestinal abnormality.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2004 Jan;27(1):66.
PMID: 14739884 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
27: Kelian J. Related Articles, Links
Can patient reactions to the first chiropractic treatment predict early favorable treatment outcome in persistent low back pain?
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2004 Jan;27(1):75-6; author reply 76. No abstract available.
PMID: 14739882 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
28: te Kolstee R, Miller JM, Knaap SF. Related Articles, Links
Routine screening for abuse: opening Pandora's box?
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2004 Jan;27(1):63-5.
PMID: 14739877 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
29: Ferreira ML, Ferreira PH, Latimer J, Herbert R, Maher CG. Related Articles, Links
Efficacy of spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain of less than three months' duration.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2003 Nov-Dec;26(9):593-601.
PMID: 14673408 [PubMed - indexed f |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2004 : 21:38:16 [Permalink]
|
eklein wrote:quote:
By the way, your quackwatch people have NEVER published a single piece of literature in a peer-reviewed indexed journal.
Well, the Quackwatch folks are arguing your side of things, Dr. Klein. Dr. Barrett and beskeptigal disagree on the value of evidence-based chiropractic. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
