chiropractic study

[jesse14]

I was just wondering what people on this forum think of this study. To me, it shows chiropractic to be MORE effective than hospital use for acute and sever low back pain.

here's the link and the part I found most interesting.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=90335494&dopt=Abstract

"Chiropractic treatment was more effective than hospital outpatient management, mainly for patients with chronic or severe back pain. A benefit of about 7% points on the Oswestry scale was seen at two years. The benefit of chiropractic treatment became more evident throughout the follow up period. Secondary outcome measures also showed that chiropractic was more beneficial. CONCLUSIONS--For patients with low back pain in whom manipulation is not contraindicated chiropractic almost certainly confers worthwhile, long term benefit in comparison with hospital outpatient management. The benefit is seen mainly in those with chronic or severe pain. Introducing chiropractic into NHS practice should be considered".

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[nebrfan]

I think you need to do a little more research than citing a single 15-year old study. You may also want to go and read the commentary on the study (I've got a test tmw, so I didn't waste a lot of time on this) - but it looks like this study, in addition to being 15 years old, was also poorly executed.

 

[PublicHealth]

I think you need to do a little more research than citing a single 15-year old study. You may also want to go and read the commentary on the study (I've got a test tmw, so I didn't waste a lot of time on this) - but it looks like this study, in addition to being 15 years old, was also poorly executed.

What makes this study so "poorly executed?" We all know that the British Medical Journal, one of the most highly regarded medical journals in the world, is notorious for publishing "poorly executed" studies.

Here's some more to "waste your time on": http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...d=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=2143092

 

[jesse14]

What makes this study so "poorly executed?" We all know that the British Medical Journal, one of the most highly regarded medical journals in the world, is notorious for publishing "poorly executed" studies.

Here's some more to "waste your time on": http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...d=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=2143092

when i posted that study, i knew i would get responces that critized its validity and procedures.
By the way, what does the study being 15 years old have anything to do with the results? Time doesn't make something less effective....it only allows for new procedures to become known.

Why is this study not well done?

 

[FoughtFyr]

What makes this study so "poorly executed?"

Well lets see: "(t)reatment at the discretion of the chiropractors, who used chiropractic manipulation in most patients, or of the hospital staff, who most commonly used Maitland mobilisation or manipulation, or both." So, rather than use a standardized treatment protocol on either arm we are just going to do what we want. And let's have the "medical" arm also do manipulations, instead of medical therapy - that will really show something.

We all know that the British Medical Journal, one of the most highly regarded medical journals in the world, is notorious for publishing "poorly executed" studies.

Actually the BMJ, and other medical journals, will often publish the only available research on a topic of interest - even if it is poor, and then let it get shredded in discussion letters (as this one did).

Here's some more to "waste your time on": http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...d=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=2143092

Wow, you know where the "related articles" button is. Good for you. Now here is a better question, why, if this study is so good and so clearly demonstrates the utility of chiropractic, is it not toted by the National Institute of Complementary and Alternative Medicine? It simply was not well done - the outcome measures were subjective and not blinded in any way, the treatment was not standardized, and the stated goal of the paper, introduction of chiropractic into the British NHS never occured.

Come on PH, you know better than to fall on this sword. The paper sucks.

- H

 

[FoughtFyr]

By the way, what does the study being 15 years old have anything to do with the results? Time doesn't make something less effective....it only allows for new procedures to become known.

In papers so poorly designed and/or executed that the "thread" of the research dies, being 15 years old is actually a factor. If the study were well done and the findings verifiable, there would be repeat papers to validate it (or refute it). In this case, this paper lent nothing to the materia medica.

Plus, as a matter of netiquette, posting a paper so old that electronic copies are no longer available really limits discussion (unless you provide a copy). It leaves the reader to debate from the abstract (bad idea) or necessitates them locating a copy of the paper themselves...

- H

 

[PublicHealth]

(it never ends)

 

[FoughtFyr]

(it never ends)

Amen...



- H