Paul G. Shekelle, MD, PhD; Reed B. Phillips, DC, PhD;
Daniel C. Cherkin, PhD; William C. Meeker, DC, MPH
This chapter summarizes what has been learned from clinical trials about the benefits of spinal manipulation for specific problems and from case reports about the risks of spinal manipulation. In addition, findings of studies examining the ability of spinal manipulation to increase patient satisfaction, decrease cost, or increase cost-effectiveness of care are summarized.
A. Evidence for Benefits of Spinal Manipulation from Clinical Trials
For any health care intervention, it is hoped that the expected benefits exceed the expected risks. The most rigorous method for establishing efficacy of a treatment is the randomized controlled trial (RCT). There have been many RCTs of spinal manipulation for a variety of different patient presentations, as well as many reviews of these RCTs (Assendelft, 1995). This section summarizes both primary data and reviews of studies of the impact of spinal manipulation on patient outcomes, particularly symptoms and function.
1. Musculoskeletal Conditions
Low Back Pain
There have been at least 36 randomized clinical trials of spinal manipulation for patients with low back pain (Koes, 1996). These studies have been of variable quality, as assessed both explicitly and implicitly by several independent investigators. The two highest quality reviews of spinal manipulation for low back pain reached somewhat different conclusions (Koes, 1991, 1996; Shekelle, 1992). The first review, conducted in 1991 and updated in 1996, noted the heterogeneity in study quality and treatments, and did not attempt statistical combinations of individual studies (Koes, 1991,1996). These reviews concluded that it is not conclusively proven that spinal manipulation is beneficial for any low back pain clinical syndrome.
A 1992 meta-analysis concluded that in some patient presentations spinal manipulation is more efficacious than both sham manipulation and the medical therapies to which it has been compared (Shekelle, 1992). This meta-analysis included nine studies of manipulation for patients with acute or subacute (less than a few weeks’ duration) low-back pain uncomplicated by sciatica. The two best quality studies found a clinically and statistically significant benefit of manipulation in terms of functional status in patients whose pain had persisted between 2 and 4 weeks prior to treatment (Hadler, 1987; MacDonald, 1990). These studies used sophisticated composite measures of functional status, and the authors of the meta-analysis did not feel it valid to combine these two studies with the other studies, which used different outcome measures. The results of the remaining seven studies, along with the meta-analytic statistical combination of their results, are shown in Figure 5. The combined results of these studies indicated that spinal manipulation is more efficacious than the comparison treatments (Shekelle, 1992). Specifically, the probability of recovery 3 weeks after initiation of treatment was an average of 0.17 higher in the groups receiving manipulation, representing a 34 percent improvement in recovery.
Figure 5. Difference of probability of recovery in seven trials of manipulation. A difference in probability of greater than zero represents a beneficial effect of manipulation. For individual studies, the 95 percent confidence intervals are shown, and for the meta-analysis, the 95 percent probability limits are shown.
Source: Shekelle PG, et al. Spinal manipulation for low back pain. Ann Intern Med 1992;117(7):p 594. Reprinted with permission.
The Shekelle study (1992) also reported that there are insufficient data to reach a conclusion for patients with chronic low back pain or sciatica. The three trials of manipulation for sciatica were all of mediocre quality and their statistical combination favored manipulation but did not quite reach conventional levels of statistical significance. The controlled trials of spinal manipulation for chronic low back pain included in the 1992 review reached conflicting conclusions and their heterogeneity precluded statistical combination.
Since the Shekelle and Koes reviews were completed, at least eight additional clinical trials have been published that compare treatments including spinal manipulation with various other treatments for patients with low back pain (Herzog, 1991; Koes, 1992; Wreje, 1992; Blomberg, 1994; Erhard, 1994; Pope, 1994; Triano, 1995; Meade, 1995). The results of these trials are mixed. Of the four studies including patients with acute low back pain, one study of patients felt to have sacroiliac joint dysfunction did not show a benefit for spinal manipulation in relief of pain (Herzog, 1991), another study demonstrated that the addition of spinal manipulation to exercise therapy improved functional and pain outcomes measured at one month (Erhard, 1994), and two “pragmatic” studies found manipulation combined with other treatments to be superior to conventional nonmanipulative therapy (Koes, 1992; Blomberg, 1994). Another study of patients with subacute low back pain showed a nonsignificant trend toward improvement in pain in the group receiving manipulation (Pope, 1994).
For patients with chronic back pain, the one new study that specifically compared spinal manipulation to an artfully conducted sham showed, as other studies have, a benefit in terms of pain relief (but not improved function) after 2 weeks of manipulation (Triano, 1995). Two other studies recently reported long-term followup of patients treated with manipulation by either physiotherapists or chiropractors compared to other forms of care. Both studies reported somewhat better outcomes after one or more years for the patients who received manipulation (Koes, 1992; Meade, 1995). The addition of these new trials would not seem to alter the conclusions of the prior review and meta-analysis. Based on the available evidence, convincing conclusions cannot be made regarding net benefits of spinal manipulation for patients with chronic low back pain or sciatica. Depending upon whether one accepts or rejects the validity of statistical combinations of studies, there either is or is not conclusive evidence that spinal manipulation is of benefit to patients with uncomplicated acute low back pain. These evidence-based conclusions are in general accordance with those of a multidisciplinary expert panel convened to rate the appropriateness of spinal manipulation for low back pain syndromes (Shekelle, 1991).
A recent systematic review of the literature assessed the evidence for the effectiveness of chiropractic treatment for patients with low back pain (Assendelft, 1996a). An exhaustive search of the literature identified eight randomized clinical trials. Four of these studies were restricted to patients with chronic pain while the remainder included both acute and chronic pain. All of the studies had serious design flaws and because they used a wide variety of outcome measures and followup intervals the results were not statistically combined. The findings of the eight studies were mixed. The authors concluded that their review failed to find convincing evidence for the effectiveness of chiropractic for acute or chronic low back pain and that higher quality studies would be needed before firm conclusions for or against the effectiveness of chiropractic could be reached (Assendelft, 1996a).
It should be noted that, in the back pain literature, seriously flawed studies that reach inconsistent conclusions are not unique to studies of spinal manipulation. In fact, a recent evidence-based review of conservative and surgical interventions for acute back pain failed to identify any interventions supported by multiple high-quality scientific studies (Bigos, 1994). Thus, despite the poor quality of many of the studies evaluating its effectiveness, there is as much or more evidence for the effectiveness of spinal manipulation as for other non-surgical treatments for back pain.
After low back pain, neck pain is the most common symptom for which patients seek chiropractic care. Only five randomized clinical trials have examined the efficacy of spinal manipulation for neck pain (Koes, 1992; Cassidy, 1992; Howe, 1983; Sloop, 1982; Vernon, 1990). Like those for low back pain, the clinical trials of manipulation for neck pain varied widely in terms of quality. Most study results favored the group treated with manipulation, although conventional levels of statistical significance were reached for only some of the outcomes. The best quality study compared physical therapist-provided manipulation to nonmanipulative physical therapy (Koes, 1992), detuned diathermy, and usual general practitioner care for patients with nonspecific low back pain and neck pain syndromes. Overall, this study concluded that both of the physical therapist-treated groups had better outcomes than the other two groups, and that the group receiving manipulation did slightly but statistically significantly better at one year than the group receiving nonmanipulative physical therapy. Results of analysis restricted to the 64 persons with neck pain alone favored the manipulated group but did not reach statistical significance, possibly due to the small sample size (less than 20 persons per group).
A recent meta-analysis reviewed studies of patients with several neck pain clinical syndromes who had received a variety of “manual therapies” including manipulation and mobilization (Aker, 1996). This analysis found a benefit for the manual therapy-treated group. However, because of the heterogeneity among patient types and treatments, one cannot directly attribute this benefit to manipulation or to any particular patient presentation.
For patients with muscle tension type headache, the best quality clinical trial showed statistically significant improvements for the manipulated group, compared to a group treated with amitriptyline, in terms of headache intensity assessed 4 weeks after concluding 6 weeks of therapy (Boline, 1995). Two studies of lesser quality also reported short-term benefits for the group treated with manipulation (Hoyt, 1979; Jentsen, 1987). The only clinical trial of manipulation for patients with migraine headache compared it to mobilization and reported decreases in pain intensity in the patients treated with manipulation but no differences with respect to mean frequency or duration of attacks, or mean disability (Parker, 1978).
Other Musculoskeletal Conditions
The potential benefits of manipulative therapy for other musculoskeletal conditions are largely unknown and limited to case series reports. There is a clear need for research in this area.
2. Nonmusculoskeletal Conditions
Based on personal experience, some chiropractors believe that manipulation can beneficially influence the body’s overall healing capacity. However, there is little evidence to support this and it is possible that some of the more dramatic reports of recovery from nonmusculoskeletal conditions resulted from original misdiagnoses, the effect of concurrent treatments, or from remissions that would have occurred regardless of treatment.
Many of the nonmusculoskeletal conditions believed by some to respond to manipulative therapy may be conditions of a functional nature that lack a well-defined medical treatment regimen (e.g., somatization). These conditions are often caused or exacerbated by psychological stress and therefore may be responsive to attention from a caring healer who conveys to the patient a sense that he or she can help. While it is also possible that manual (hands-on) therapy causes a neurological response that leads to reductions in stress-related symptoms and improvements in the functional disorder, this remains speculative. The interrelationship among functional disorders, stress, and the status of the neuromusculoskeletal system is in need of additional research.
There is now a small body of published studies examining the effect of chiropractic manipulative care on nonmusculoskeletal health conditions. The conditions studied include, but are not limited to hypertension (Vernon, 1986; McNight, 1988; Christian, 1988; Nansel, 1991; Yates, 1988); asthma (Hviid, 1978; Nilsson, 1988; Jamison, 1986; Neilson, 1995); dysmenorrhea (Kokjohn, 1992; Liebl, 1990; Arnold-Frochot, 1981; Thomason, 1979), infantile colic (Klougart, 1989); otitis media (Hobbs, 1991); childhood enuresis (Reed, 1994); dizziness/vertigo (Jirout, 1985; Droz, 1985; Gorman, 1993); and chronic pelvic pain (Browning, 1989; Hawk, 1997).
A recent systematic review of the literature concerning the efficacy of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for nonmusculoskeletal conditions concluded that “SMT seems to be nonefficacious in the treatment of hypertension and chronic moderately severe asthma in adults” but that the evidence was not strong enough to proscribe the use of SMT for these conditions (Bronfort, 1996). The review further concluded that, because of the small number and poor quality of the available studies, “there is insufficient evidence to advise for or against the use of SMT in the treatment of vertigo, nocturnal childhood enuresis, dysmenorrhea, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, duodenal ulcer, and infantile colic.”
Chiropractic researchers are currently planning or undertaking (as of 1997) randomized trials or cohort studies of the effectiveness of manual treatment procedures for childhood asthma, chronic pelvic pain, otitis media, vascular lability in migraine headache patients, dysmenorrhea, mild hypertension, and migraine headache.
B. Risks of Spinal Manipulation
Until recently, there have been no systematic reports of the complications or risks of spinal manipulation, and all that was known came from case reports and clinical trials (Assendelft, 1996b). Recently, however, data from a prospective study of side effects of spinal manipulation performed by 102 Norwegian chiropractors on 1,058 new patients have become available (Senstad, 1997). After an average of about 4.5 visits, 55 percent of the patients reported at least one reaction to the manipulation. The most commonly reported reactions were: local discomfort (53 percent), headache (12 percent), tiredness, (11 percent) and radiating discomfort (10 percent). Only 15 percent of reactions were considered “severe” and no serious complications were reported. Most reactions appeared within 4 hours of treatment and had disappeared within 24 hours. Reactions were more likely to be reported by women, following the first treatment, when multiple spinal regions were treated and when only the thoracic spine was treated (Senstad, 1996). A cause-and-effect relationship between the manipulation and the reactions has not been established and it is likely that some of the reactions attributed to manipulation were, in fact, coincidental.
No systematic reports of the rate of serious complications of spinal manipulation have been conducted in the United States. Case reports may underestimate the true number of adverse events, including serious ones, or be so poorly documented that a true cause-and-effect relationship is not established. Furthermore, the total number of persons who have received spinal manipulation, and their clinical presentation, is unknown. Nevertheless, using data from case reports on the number of complications and epidemiologic estimates of the number of lumbar spinal manipulations received during the time period covered by the case reports, it was possible to roughly estimate the rate of occurrence of the most serious complication of lumbar manipulation, the cauda equina syndrome, as about 1 case per 100 million manipulations (Shekelle, 1992). It is probably higher in patients with a herniated nucleus pulposus, and lower in patients without this anatomic abnormality. As there are no systematic data about the rate of serious complications due to spinal manipulation, it is not known if the rate varies by provider type. In the best documented study published to date, Haldeman (1992) describes the outcomes of 10 patients with cauda equina syndrome believed to have been caused by spinal manipulation (without anesthesia). Most of these patients subsequently underwent surgical decompression and were left with residual neurologic deficits that ranged from paresis to mild constipation.
Serious complications of cervical spine manipulation are also rare (none having been reported in any of the clinical trials), but appear to be more common and severe than complications of lumbar manipulation. The most serious complication of cervical spine manipulation is related to compromise of the vertebrobasilar artery, leading to stroke or death. As with lumbar manipulations, limited data preclude an exact estimate of the frequency of this complication, or identification of risk factors for its occurrence. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the risk is higher for manipulation involving rotation plus extension of the cervical spine than for other types of manipulation, and that persons who have suffered manipulation-related vertebrobasilar artery compromise do not have the same clinical characteristics as patients who suffer vertebrobasilar artery compromise due to atherosclerotic disease. The best estimate of the incidence of vertebrobasilar artery compromise related to cervical spine manipulation is that it occurs once in 1 million manipulations (Hurwitz, 1996; McGregor, 1995).
It should be kept in mind that, while spinal manipulation has its risks and benefits, so do other treatments for back and neck pain. For example, medications commonly used for back pain can cause significant complications (Anker, 1994; Bjarnason, 1993) as can lumbar surgery (Hoffman, 1993; McGregor, 1995). However, most randomized clinical trials directly comparing spinal manipulation with other types of nonoperative treatment have reported no complications in either group, suggesting that the risks of these nonoperative treatments are low. The risks and benefits of spinal manipulation have not been compared to those for surgery. Optimal care of back pain patients will require balancing the risks and benefits of alternative treatments. At present, however, comparative data for these largely low-risk therapies are not available.
C. Patient Satisfaction with Chiropractic Care
Observational studies have consistently found that low back pain patients receiving chiropractic care, which typically includes (but is not restricted to) spinal manipulation, are more satisfied than those receiving medical care (Cherkin, 1989; Carey, 1995; Kane, 1974). How much of this enhanced satisfaction is a specific result of the spinal manipulation per se is not known. There are other reasons why one might expect chiropractic care to be more satisfying than medical care. For example, chiropractors have more frequent and closer contact with their patients, they are more comfortable and confident dealing with back pain, they provide patients with a clearer explanation of the cause of their problem (often documented on an x-ray), and they do not need to refer the patient for physical treatment (Cherkin, 1988; Coulehan, 1985). In addition, persons who choose to see chiropractors may differ in some way from those who see medical doctors.
D. Cost and Cost-Effectiveness of Chiropractic Care
The annual cost of chiropractic care in the United States is not known with certainty, but has been estimated at $3.5 billion in 1987 (Nichols, 1996). In the United States. in 1990, an estimated $13.7 billion was spent on all types of unconventional medicine and chiropractors were by far the unconventional practitioner most often seen (Eisenberg, 1993). The relative cost-effectiveness of chiropractic care and medical care has not been convincingly established (Assendelft, 1993; Manga, 1994). Most studies have failed to compare equivalent patients, measure clinically useful outcomes, and include both direct and indirect costs in the comparison.
To date, no randomized clinical trials including explicit measures of direct and indirect costs have been published. What is available are many case-control studies of costs (but not patient outcomes) using Worker’s Compensation data (Assendelft, 1993), a few studies of only cost based on claims data analyses (Blue Cross/Blue Shield, 1986; Stano, 1993; Mushinski, 1995; Stano, 1996), a randomized controlled trial of effectiveness that imputed (but did not explicitly measure) total costs (Meade, 1995), and a recent prospective observational study of patients with acute low back pain which reported outcomes as well as calculated direct costs (Carey, 1995).
Although the majority of these studies have found that chiropractic care was less expensive than medical care (Assendelft, 1993), some have found the opposite to be true (Nyiendo, 1991; Greenwood, 1985). The main limitation of all these studies is their inability to adequately control for differences in the types of patients served by chiropractors and medical doctors. It is possible that persons choosing treatment from a chiropractor differ substantially from those seeking medical care in ways that cannot be adequately controlled for using the limited data that are usually available from databases designed for billing purposes. In the one observational study that prospectively measured both clinically relevant outcomes and calculated direct medical costs, clinical outcomes were no different between medically (primary care or orthopedist) and chiropractically treated patients, but chiropractic care and orthopedic care cost more (Carey, 1995). Chiropractic patients, however, were more satisfied with their care. This study involved only a single State (North Carolina) that had had virtually no managed care experience with chiropractic services. Ultimately, randomized clinical trials that include cost measures will be needed to satisfactorily answer this question.
Aker PD, Gross AR, Goldsmith CH, Peloso P. Conservative management of mechanical neck pain: systematic overview and meta-analysis. BMJ 1996;313:1291-6.
Anker AL, Smilkstein MJ. Acetaminophen concepts and controversies. Emerg Med Clin North Am 1994;12:335-49.
Arnold-Frochot S. Investigation of the effect of chiropractic adjustments on a specific gynaecological symptom: dysmenorrhea. J Aust Chiropr Assoc 1981;11:6-17.
Assendelft WJJ, Bouter LM. Does the goose really lay golden eggs? A methodological review of workmen’s compensation studies. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1993;16:161-8.
Assendelft WJJ, Koes BW, Knipschild PG, Bouter L. The relationship between methodological quality and conclusions in reviews of spinal manipulation. JAMA 1995;274(24):1942-8.
Assendelft WJJ, Koes BW, van der Heijden GJMG, Bouter LM. The effectiveness of chiropractic for treatment of low back pain: an update and attempt at statistical pooling. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1996a;19:499-507.
Assendelft WJJ, Bouter LM, Knipschild PG. Complications of spinal manipulation: a comprehensive review of the literature. J Fam Pract 1996b;42:475-80.
Bigos S, Bowyer O, Braen G, et al. Acute Low Back Problems in Adults. Clinical Practice Guidelines No. 14. AHCPR Publication No. 95-0642. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, December 1994.
Bjarnason I, Hayllar J, MacPherson AJ, Russell AS. Side effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on the large and small intestines in humans. Gastroenterology 1993;104:1832-47.
Blomberg S, Hallin G, Grann K, et al. Manual therapy with steroid injections: a new approach to treatment of low back pain. Spine 1994;19(5):569-77.
Blue Cross/Blue Shield. The Financial Impact of Chiropractic Benefits on Health Care in Arizona, 1983-1986.
Boline PD, Kassak K, Nelson C, Bronfort G, Anderson A. Spinal manipulation vs. amitriptyline for the treatment of chronic tension-type headaches: a randomized clinical trial. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1995;18:148-54.
Bronfort G, Assendelft WJJ, Bouter LM. Efficacy of spinal manipulative therapy for conditions other than neck and back pain: a systematic review and best evidence synthesis. Proceedings of the 1996 International Conference on Spinal Manipulation, October 18-19, 1996. Bournemouth, England: p 105-6.
Browning JE. Chiropractic distractive decompression in treating pelvic pain and multiple system pelvic organic dysfunction. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1989;12:265-74.
Carey TS, Garrett J, Jackman A, McLaughlin C, Fryer J, Smucker D. The outcomes and costs of care for acute low back pain among patients seen by primary care practitioners, chiropractors, and orthopedic surgeons. N Engl J Med1995;333(14):913-7.
Cassidy JD, Lopes AA, Yong-Hing K. The immediate effect of manipulation versus mobilization on pain and range of motion in the cervical spine: a randomized controlled trial. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1992;15:570-5.
Cherkin DC, MacCornack FA, Berg AO. The management of low back pain: a comparison of the beliefs and behaviors of family physicians and chiropractors. West J Med 1988;149:475-80.
Cherkin DC, MacCornack FA. Patient evaluations of low back pain care from family physicians and chiropractors. West J Med 1989;150:351-5.
Christian GH, Stanton GJ, Sissons D, How HY, Jamison J, Alder B, Fullerton M, Funder JW. Immunoreactive ACTH, beta-endorphin, and cortisol levels in plasma following spinal manipulative therapy. Spine 1988:13:1411-7.
Coulehan JL. Adjustment, the hands and healing. Cult Med Psychiatry 1985;9:353-82.
Droz J, Crot F. Occipital headaches. Ann Swiss Chiropr Assoc 1985;8:127-35.
Eisenberg DM, Kessler RC, Foster C, et al. Unconventional medicine in the United States: prevalence, costs and patterns of use. N Engl J Med 1993;328(4):246-52.
Erhard RE, Delitto A, Cibulka MT. Relative effectiveness of an extension program and a combined program of manipulation and flexion and extension exercises in patients with acute low back syndrome. Physical Therapy 1994;74(12):1093-1100.
Gorman RF. Automated static perimetry in chiropractic. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1993;16:481-87.
Greenwood JG. Work-related back and neck injury cases in West Virginia: the issues on chiropractic and medical costs. Orthop Rev 1985;14:51-63.
Hadler NM, Curtis P, Gillings DB, Stinnett S. A benefit of spinal manipulation as adjunctive therapy for acute low back pain: a stratified controlled trial. Spine 1987;12:702-6.
Haldeman, S, Rubinstein, SM. Cauda equina syndrome in patients undergoing manipulation of the lumbar spine. Spine 1992;17(12):1469-73.
Hawk C, Long C, Azad A. Chiropractic care for chronic pelvic pain: a prospective single-group intervention study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1997;20:73-79.
Herzog W, Conway PJW, Willcox BJ. Effects of different treatment modalities on gait symmetry and clinical measures for sacroiliac joint patients. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1991;14(2):104-9.
Hobbs D, Rasmussen S. Chronic otitis media: a case report. J Chiropr 1991;28:67-68.
Hoffman RM, Wheeler KJ, Deyo RA. Surgery for herniated lumbar discs: a literature synthesis. J Gen Intern Med 1993;8:487-96.
Howe DH, Newcombe RG, Wade MT. Manipulation of the cervical spine: a pilot study. J Roy Coll Gen Pract 1983;33:564-79.
Hoyt W, Shaffer F, Bard D, Benesler J, Blankenhorn G, Gray J, Hartman W, Hughes L. Osteopathic manipulation in the treatment of muscle-contraction headache. J Amer Osteopath Assoc 1979;78:322-5.
Hurwitz EL, Aker P, Adams AH, Meeker W, Shekelle PG. Mobilization and manipulation of the cervical spine: a systematic review of the literature. Spine 1996;21:1746-60.
Hviid CA. A comparison of the effect of chiropractic treatment on respiratory function in patients with respiratory distress symptoms and patients without. Bull Eur Chiropr Union 1978;26:17-34.
Jamison JR. Asthma in a chiropractic clinic: a pilot study. J Aust Chiropr Assoc 1986;16(4):138-44.
Jentsen JM, Amatuzio J, Peterson GF. Complications of cervical manipulation: a case report of fatal brainstem infarct with review of mechanisms and predisposing factors. J Forensic Sci 1987;32:1089-94.
Jirout J. Comments regarding the diagnosis and treatment of dysfunctions in the C2-C3 segment. Manual Med 1985;2:16-17.
Kane RL, Leymaster C, Olsen D, Woolley FR, Fisher FD. Manipulating the patient: a comparison of the effectiveness of physician and chiropractor care. Lancet 1974;1:1333-6.
Klougart N, Nilsson N, Jacobsen J. Infantile colic treated by chiropractors: a prospective study of 316 cases. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1989;12:281-8.
Koes BW, Assendelft WJJ, van der Heijden GJMG, Bouter LM, Knipschild PG. Spinal manipulation and mobilization for back and neck pain: a blinded review. BMJ 1991;303:1298-1303.
Koes BW, Bouter LM, van Mameren H, et al. Randomized clinical trial of manipulative therapy and physiotherapy for persistent back and neck complaints: results of one year follow up. BMJ 1992;304:601-5.
Koes BW, Assendelft WJJ, van der Heijden GJMG, Bouter LM. Spinal manipulation for low back pain: an updated systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Spine 1996;21:2860-73.
Kokjohn K, Schmid DM, Triano JJ, Brennan PC. The effect of spinal manipulation on pain and prostaglandin levels in women with primary dysmenorrhea. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1992;15:279-85.
Liebl NA, Butler LM. A chiropractic approach to the treatment of dysmenorrhea. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1990;3:101-6.
MacDonald RS, Bell CM. An open controlled assessment of osteopathic manipulation in nonspecific low-back pain. Spine 1990;15:364-70.
Manga P, Angus D, Swan WR. Findings and recommendations from an independent review of chiropractic management of low back pain. J Neuromusculoskeletal System 1994;2(3):157-60.
McGregor M, Haldeman S, Kohlbeck FJ. Vertebrobasilar compromise associated with cervical manipulation. Top Clin Chiropr 1995;2:(3):63-73.
McNight ME, DeBoer KF. Preliminary study of blood pressure changes in normotensive subjects undergoing chiropractic care. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1988;11:261-6.
Meade TW, Dyer S, Browne W, et al. Randomized comparison of chiropractic and hospital outpatient management for low back pain: results from extended follow up. BMJ 1995;311:349-51.
Mushinski M. Treatment of back pain outpatient service charges, 1993. Stat Bull Metrop Insur Co 1995; p 32.
Nansel D, Jansen R, Cremata E, Dhami MS, Holley D. Effects of cervical adjustments on lateral-flexion passive end range asymmetry and on blood pressure, heart rate and plasma catecholamine levels. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1991;14:450-6.
Neilson NH, Bronfort G, Bendix F, Madsen F, Weeke B. Chronic asthma and chiropractic spinal manipulation: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Experim Allergy 1995;25:80-88.
Nichols LM. Nonphysician Health Care Providers: Use of Ambulatory Services, Expenditures, and Sources of Payment (AHCPR Pub. No. 96-00013). National Medical Expenditure Survey Research Findings 27. Rockville, MD: AHCPR, Public Health Service, Jan 1996.
Nilsson N, Christiansen B. Prognostic factors in bronchial asthma in chiropractic practice. J Austral Chiropr Assoc 1988;18:85-87.
Nyiendo J. Disabling low back Oregon workers’ compensation claims. Part III: diagnostic and treatment procedures and associated costs. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1991;14(5):287-97.
Parker GB, Tupling H, Pryor DS. A controlled trial of cervical manipulation for migraine. Austral New Zealand J Med 1978;8:589-93.
Pope MH, Phillips RB, Haugh LD, et al. A prospective randomized three-week trial of spinal manipulation, transcutaneous muscle stimulation, massage and corset in the treatment of subacute low back pain. Spine 1994;19(22):2571-7.
Reed W, Beavers S, Reddy SK, Kern G. Chiropractic management of primary nocturnal enuresis. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1994;17:596-600.
Senstad O, Leboeuf-Yde C, Borchgrevink D. Predictors of side-effects to spinal manipulative therapy. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1996;19:441-5.
Senstad O, Leboeuf-Yde C, Borchgrevink D. Frequency and characteristics of side effects of spinal manipulative therapy. Spine 1997;22:435-41.
Shekelle PG, Adams AH, Chassin MR, Hurwitz EL, Phillips RB, Brook RH. The Appropriateness of Spinal Manipulation for Low Back Pain: Indications and Ratings by a Multi-Disciplinary Expert Panel. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, R-4025/2-CCR, 1991.
Shekelle PG, Adams AH, Chassin MR, Hurwitz EL, Brook RH. Spinal manipulation for low-back pain. Ann Intern Med 1992;117(7):590-8.
Sloop PR, Smith DS, Goldenberg E, Dore C. Manipulation for chronic neck pain: a double-blind controlled study. Spine 1982;7:532-5.
Stano M. A comparison of health care costs for chiropractic and medical patients. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1993;16:291-9.
Stano M, Smith M. Chiropractic and medical costs of low back care. Med Care 1996;34(3):191-204.
Thomason PR, Fisher BL, Carpenter PA, Finke GL. Effectiveness of spinal manipulative therapy in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea: a pilot study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1979;2:140-5.
Triano JJ, McGregor M, Hondras MA, et al. Manipulative therapy versus education programs in chronic low back pain. Spine 1995;20(8):948-55.
Vernon HT, Dhami MS, Howley TP, Annett R. Spinal manipulation and beta-endorphin: a controlled study of the effects of a spinal manipulation on plasma beta-endorphin levels in normal males. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1986;9:115-23.
Vernon HT, Aker P, Burns S, Viljakaanen S, Short L. Pressure pain threshold evaluation of the effect of spinal manipulation in the treatment of chronic neck pain: a pilot study. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1990;13:13-16.
Wreje U, Nordgren B, Aberg Hans. Treatment of pelvic joint dysfunction in primary care: a controlled study. Scand J Primary Health Care 1992;10:310-5.
Yates R, Lamping DL, Abram NL, Wright C. Effects of chiropractic treatment on blood pressure and anxiety: a randomized, controlled trial. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1988;11(6):484-8.
To report inappropriate ads,