Should we abandon cervical spine manipulation for mechanical neck pain? Yes
updated
Wand BM, Heine PJ, O'Connell NE. Should we abandon cervical spine manipulation for mechanical neck pain? Yes. BMJ. 2012;344:e3679. PubMed #22677796.
Tags: treatment, chiropractic, spinal adjustment, neck, manual therapy, controversy, debunkery, spine, head/neck
PainSci summary of Wand 2012?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. ★★★☆☆?3-star ratings are for typical studies with no more (or less) than the usual common problems. 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.
Extremely well-written position paper this tired old controversy.
original abstract†Abstracts here may not perfectly match originals, for a variety of technical and practical reasons. Some abstacts are truncated for my purposes here, if they are particularly long-winded and unhelpful. I occasionally add clarifying notes. And I make some minor corrections.
Cervical spine manipulation (a high velocity, low amplitude, end range thrust manoeuvre) is a common treatment option for mechanical neck pain yet may carry the potential for serious neurovascular complications, specifically vertebral artery dissection and subsequent vertebrobasilar stroke. The non-superiority of manipulation to alternative treatments, coupled with concerns regarding safety, renders cervical spine manipulation unnecessary and inadvisable.
related content
Specifically regarding Wand 2012:
One article on PainScience.com cites Wand 2012 as a source:
- PS The Chiropractic Controversies — An introduction to chiropractic controversies like aggressive billing, treating kids, and neck manipulation risks
