Is a postural-structural-biomechanical model, within manual therapies, viable? A JBMT debate

Chaitow L. Is a postural-structural-biomechanical model, within manual therapies, viable? A JBMT debate. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2011 Apr;15(2):130–52. PubMed #21419348.

PainSci summary of Chaitow 2011?This page is one of thousands in the PainScience.com bibliography. It is not a general article: it is focused on a single scientific paper, and it may provide only just enough context for the summary to make sense. Links to other papers and more general information are provided at the bottom of the page, as often as possible. ★★☆☆☆?2-star ratings are for studies with flaws, bias, and/or conflict of interest; published in lesser journals. Ratings are a highly subjective opinion, and subject to revision at any time. If you think this paper has been incorrectly rated, please let me know.

A series of rebuttals to Eyal Lederman’s well-known article criticizing the validity and clinical utility of the postural-structural-biomechanical model of pain (see Lederman), and therefore it is also a rebuttal to my own article on this topic (see Your Back Is Not Out of Alignment). I am not impressed: most of what is good in these rebuttals is consistent with what I've already conceded (namely that, yes, duh, structure is sometimes clinically relevant), while the rest generally fails to address the concerns that both Dr. Lederman and I have raised.

related content

Chaitow 2011 is about:

• “The fall of the postural–structural–biomechanical model in manual and physical therapies: Exemplified by lower back pain,” an article in Journal of Bodywork & Movement Therapies, 2011.

One article on PainScience.com cites Chaitow 2011 as a source:

• PS Your Back Is Not Out of Alignment — Debunking the obsession with alignment, posture, and other biomechanical bogeymen as major causes of pain