Sensible advice for aches, pains & injuries
bibliography * The PainScience Bibliography contains plain language summaries of thousands of scientific papers and others sources, like a specialized blog. This page is about a single scientific paper in the bibliography, Wand 2012.

Should we abandon cervical spine manipulation for mechanical neck pain? Yes

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 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

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 cites Wand 2012 as a source:

This page is part of the PainScience BIBLIOGRAPHY, which contains plain language summaries of thousands of scientific papers & others sources. It’s like a highly specialized blog. A few highlights: