Current Concepts: Spinal Manipulation and Cervical Arterial Incidents 2005
this window
new window
PainSci notes
Like the infamous Cassidy et al paper, this document is often cited by chiropractors when they are trying to allay fears about serious complications of cervical adjustment. (The document isn’t readily available online anymore, but a PDF might crop up in a Google search.) Although the athors make an effort to be scientifically sound, they obviously have a conflict of interest, stating outright that they wish to make the case that cervical manipulation is not dangerous. Consider this excerpt from the executive summary: “In addition, as part of our ongoing commitment to giving NCMIC doctors the best defense possible should the need arise, we are providing this information to our network of chiropractic defense attorneys. We expect this latest research will be an important tool for our defense attorneys to use in presenting the most contemporary findings from recent research and to help overcome common biases held by judges and juries.” So, whatever else this document might be, it’s not objective. Note: Allan Terrett originally wrote a monograph for the National Chiropractic Mutual Insurance Company in 2001. The 2005 version is not written by him, but by Triano and Kawchuk “with grateful appreciation” to him.
~ Paul Ingraham, PainSci Publisher
Related Content
“Risk of vertebrobasilar stroke and chiropractic care: results of a population-based case-control and case-crossover study,” Cassidy et al, Spine, 2008.
These two articles on PainScience.com cite this item as a source: