article archive
May 2006
Study says chiropractic 'doesn't
work'
by Dr. David A. Jackson
As though the chiropractic profession needed any more bad
news, a recent research study published in the Journal of
the Royal Society of Medicine, concluded that there is little
or no evidence that "that spinal manipulation is an
effective intervention."
The research ‑‑ that involved analysis of 16
studies published between 2000 and 2004 ‑‑ was
on spinal manipulative therapy performed by both osteopaths
and chiropractors. However, most readers assumed the report
was about chiropractic. The general public, after all, doesn't
realize that many chiropractors don't do SMT but perform
spinal adjustments to correct vertebral subluxations. This
is definitely the downside of the decades‑old campaign
by some elements in our profession to link chiropractic to "spinal
manipulation" rather than create our own unique identity.
One
online news outlet summarized the report with an article headlined "Spinal Manipulation May Be Useless ‑‑ or
Worse," that stated "Having your back 'cracked'
to ease pain and other problems is a waste of time and money
... and in some cases ... it can make the problem worse."
The
same type of coverage appeared in newspapers around the globe
(a quick Google search found articles in publications from
California to Turkey).
Here are some of the other headlines:
"Spinal manipulation by chiropractors no better than
sham manipulation." ‑‑ What is the Word,
Maharashtra, India
"Spinal Manipulation Doesn't Work For Any Condition,
New Research Finds" ‑‑ Medical News Today
"An expert has claimed that spinal manipulation can
be dangerous" ‑‑ The Telegraph, UK
"Manipulation of the spine 'is of little use for treating
any condition" ‑‑ The Scotsman
"Spinal manipulation 'has little effect on back pain'" ‑‑ The
Independent, UK
"Chiropractors are offering 'worthless' form of treatment" ‑‑ Times
of London
Many of these news reports failed to include comments
from chiropractic or osteopathic spokespersons such as the
British Chiropractic Association, which said: "(Researchers)
Ernst and Canter have carefully selected negative articles
in support of their conclusion that manipulation cannot be
recommended as a treatment when national clinical practice
guidelines, based on much more and better research than the
studies this article has selected, has come to exactly the
opposite conclusion. Professor Ernst has a track record of
the disparagement of manipulation professions, especially
chiropractic, which more capable scientific review has found
to be groundless."
Few included this quote from Robert Lever, professor at
the European School of Osteopathy: "Researchers are
looking in the wrong place for evidence. If they spent a
little time at a busy practice they would see the evidence."
Of course, I'm not surprised that Dr. Lever's statement
didn't get more attention. After all, when people look for
proof of a health claim, they don't look at actual practices,
busy or otherwise. The real‑life experiences of patients
who get well under chiropractic (or other types of care)
are dismissed as mere "anecdotal evidence."
We can't counter this type of bad publicity by saying "come
to my office and talk to my patients." That isn't going
to "cut it" if we want to establish a 21st‑century
image of chiropractic as a scientific, evidence‑based
discipline. To generate worldwide headlines, we'll need to
have solid, unimpeachable scientific evidence.
This means predicting
the arguments ahead of time and making sure all the bases
are covered.
First of all, the research we do must be on chiropractic
not spinal manipulation. If we do research that proves the
effectiveness of spinal manipulation, the osteopathic profession
will be the prime beneficiary, not chiropractors. If the
news is bad, chiropractors get the blame. If the news is
good, osteopaths and medical doctors will get the credit.
It's not fair; it's just the way things are. If the research
proves the benefits of chiropractic adjustments to correct
vertebral subluxations, we'll be ones to reap the rewards.
Secondly,
the research must be based on a large enough sample of the
population that no one can argue it's only a limited project.
Yes, it's true that the medical and pharmaceutical industries
often base their findings on a review of a handful of cases.
For instance, a recent study that concluded some people should
take drugs every day for the rest of their lives to prevent
high blood pressure involved fewer than 800 people.
But if we
come out with a report on 1,000, or even 10,000 people, the
results will be attacked as inconclusive due to the small number
of study participants. The RCS (Research & Clinical
Science) program, for instance, aims at compiling standardized
data on several hundred thousand volunteers (including people
who have never received chiropractic care as well as those
undergoing routine adjustments). With that number of subjects,
no critic will be able to attack the research as "too
limited."
They will, instead, try to attack its methodology.
Fortunately, RCS has worked diligently to make sure the entire
program was designed by expert researchers to comply with the
most stringent protocol standards. It was carefully examined
by an Independent Review Board (IRB) and fully approved, as
were all the researchers and clinical investigators.
Critics
won't be able to find fault with the RCS researchers, either,
since the RCS International Scientific Advisory Panel is a
multi‑disciplinary group made up of top researchers
from around the world. Their papers have been published in
numerous reputable scientific journals, including:
*** American
Journal of Medical Genetics
*** American Journal of Physical
Anthropology
*** American Psychologist
*** Archives of Internal Medicine
*** Archives of Physical Medicine
and Rehabilitation
*** Brain Research
*** Cancer Journal
*** Clinical Neurology Research
*** International Journal of
Integrative Medicine
*** International Journal of Neuropharmacology
*** Japanese
Orthopaedic Surgeon Association Journal
*** Journal of Applied
Physiology
*** Journal of Applied Social Psychology
*** Journal of Biochemistry
*** Journal of Biomedical Science
*** Journal of Cell Biology
*** Journal of Comp Neurology
*** Journal of Comparative Neurology
*** Journal of Human Evolution
*** Journal of Neurobiology
*** Journal of Neurochemistry
*** Journal of Neuroscience
*** Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports
Physical Therapy
*** Journal of Psychiatric Research
*** Journal of the American Medical Association
*** Molecular
Psychiatry
*** Nairobi Journal of Medicine
*** Neurochemistry International
*** New African Journal of
Medicine
*** Operative Techniques in Orthopaedics
*** Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences
*** Society for Neuroscience
I doubt if there are very many
(if any) research programs taking place right now with such
an impressive group of researchers.
Of course, the most rabid
anti‑chiropractic critics
might try to condemn the program merely because many of the
volunteers choose to become paying patients after taking
part in the research. But RCS has anticipated that possibility
as well, and follows procedures similar to those used at
the Mayo Clinic and other reputable research facilities.
For
example, the Mayo Clinic issues FAQ sheets for its research
projects and answers the question, "Will I need to pay
for the tests and procedures?" as follows:
"You and/or your health plan will need to pay for all
tests and procedures that are part of this study because
they are needed for your regular medical care. The study
drug will be given to you at no cost. However, you may need
to pay for the preparing of the study drug. You or your health
plan might also have to pay for other drugs or treatment
which are given to help you control side effects. Before
you take part in this study, you should call your health
insurer to find out if the cost of these tests and/or procedures
will be paid for by the plan. Some health insurers will not
pay for these costs. You will have to pay for any costs not
covered by your health insurer." (emphasis added)
Similar
procedures govern research conducted by the University of Michigan
Medical Center's General Clinical Research Center, one of 79
clinical research centers funded by the National Institutes
of Health (NIH) at leading hospitals throughout the United
States. Its informed consent form reads (in part):
"If the subject is receiving care for a condition or
illness, and is seen in a protocol that involves an accepted
form of treatment, either the patient, or the insurance company
representing that patient, is responsible for the costs of
that medical care. The NIH grant pays for only those tests
and procedures performed for research purposes; room charges
and standard treatment costs are charged to the participant's
insurance." (emphasis added)
So, unless the critics are
going to fault the Mayo Clinic and other medical research programs,
they'll have to abandon this obviously absurd attack strategy.
Since
the research program is completely legitimate and "air
tight," the only thing left will be to print the headlines.
They'll probably say things like: "Chiropractic found
to strengthen immune system," "Study proves children
healthier with subluxation correction care from birth," "Flu,
colds, viruses zapped by chiropractic care, research finds," "Wellness
levels improve with regular chiropractic care, study shows," etc.
With
more doctors signing up to become RCS Clinical Investigators,
we could be seeing news stories like that by the end of the
year. All it takes is dedication to chiropractic research
and a willingness to have a few dozen volunteers come into
your office every month for a free examination and report
of findings after they fill out an online Self‑Reported
Quality of Life study. RCS even provides its Clinical Investigators
with an exclusive "Vitality Wellness Report" for
each volunteer, to show them how they "stack up" to
others in the RCS health database. Those volunteers who wish
to receive chiropractic care can do after signing the informed
consent form, or if your practice is too busy to accept that
many new patients, you can easily refer them to nearby colleagues.
Aren't
you ready to read some good news about chiropractic for a
change?
(Dr. David A. Jackson is chief executive officer of
Research and Clinical Science ‑‑ RCS ‑‑ a
private sector research program exploring issues of subluxation
correction and chiropractic care as they relate to health
and wellness. Previously, he served as president of the Chiropractic
Leadership Alliance and Creating Wellness Alliance and was
owner/operator of several private practice offices in California
and Idaho that specialized in high‑volume, family wellness‑based
care. For more information on RCS, call 800‑909‑1354
or 480‑303‑1694, or visit the RCS website at
www.rcsprogram.com. Doctors of chiropractic may log on to
a special limited‑access area of the site by using
the username DC1 and password RESEARCH.)