Chiropractic Research
Today, millions of dollars are spent each year on
chiropractic research in North America, with solid medical studies
covering basic science, health and education. But this hasn't always
been the case. For most of the last century, the field of chiropractic
-- which began in 1895 -- has been criticized for its lack of clinical
research. Insufficient funds were the main reason research was
neglected. For chiropractors, there were more pressing concerns:
obtaining the legal right to practice and overcoming immense skepticism
from the medical community.
That's not to say there wasn't an effort to conduct
formal research. In 1944, the National Chiropractic Association (NCA)
was established, spawning the Chiropractic Research Foundation (CRF).
CRF's original purpose was to promote the funding needed to develop
sound chiropractic research. However, with the 1960s came the
realization that developing educational standards in chiropractic
schools was the profession's top priority. With that, the CRF was
renamed the Foundation for Accredited Chiropractic Education (FACE), and
a new emphasis was placed on gaining nationally recognized
accreditation. While this was good news for chiropractic colleges, it
also meant that advancements in research were put on hold.
During the next decade, the profession tried again.
This time, FACE was reorganized to form the Foundation of Chiropractic
Education and Research (FCER), which remains the profession's primary
source of funding even today. But without a standard accreditation
system in chiropractic schools, the focus remained largely on education
for the next several years.
The real turnaround began in the last 25 years. In
1974, the Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE) was finally recognized
as the accrediting agency for chiropractic schools, making way for more
time and effort to be directed to research. In 1975, the first US
federally funded research conference on chiropractic and spinal
manipulation took place in Maryland, which was a major step in uniting
researchers across the country. Later in the '70s, publications such as
the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics and Modern
Developments in the Principles and Practices of Chiropractic
provided a platform for important clinical research. The latter was the
first major interdisciplinary text written by both chiropractors and
medical doctors.
Several organizations have also contributed to
advances in research. In 1996, Iowa's Consortial Center for Chiropractic
Research began to hold annual workshops to establish a research agenda
and attract private and public research funds. In 1997, the workshop led
to a grant of over $4 million from US federal agencies. Although this
amount pales in comparison to that given to medical research (with
grants totaling over $13 billion in 1997), it is more than the total
federal funding ever previously granted to chiropractic research. It is
also sure to help the profession build on a body of research that
already includes comprehensive studies supporting chiropractic care in
the following areas:
Low back pain
Low back pain is the most commonly treated condition
in the chiropractic profession, accounting for over 65% of patient
complaints. Numerous studies confirm that chiropractic care is an
effective form of low back pain management.
In 1995, a study published in the British Medical
Journal compared the ongoing chiropractic and hospital outpatient
management for over 700 patients with low back pain. After three years,
those treated by a chiropractor showed an improvement rate nearly 30%
higher than those treated in a hospital. Similarly, in 1993 the
Government of Ontario commissioned a report into the safety and
effectiveness of chiropractic treatment of lower back pain that
concluded overwhelmingly in its favor. The following year, that report
was endorsed by government-sponsored practice guidelines in the US and
the UK.
References:
Journals
Hurwitz, E., et al. "Use of chiropractic
services from 1985 through 1991 in the United States and Canada." American
Journal of Public Health, Vol. 8 (1998): 771-776.
Meade, T., et al. "Randomized comparison
of chiropractic and hospital outpatient management for low back pain:
results from extended follow up." British Medical Journal,
Vol. 311 (1995): 349-351.
Manga, P., et al. "The Effectiveness and
Cost-Effectiveness of Chiropractic Management of Low Back Pain."
Ottawa, Ontario: Pran Manga and Associates, 1993.
Books
Chapman-Smith, D. The Chiropractic Profession.
West Des Moines: NCMIC Group Inc., 2000.
Neck pain
In recent years, chiropractic treatment of the neck
has received a lot of negative attention. However, in the past five
years, three major studies have concluded that neck manipulation and
mobilization are safe and effective methods of treatment for patients
with neck pain. The "Quebec Task Force Report", the "RAND
Corporation Report" and the "Cochrane Collaboration Systematic
Review" have all produced evidence that neck pain is more
effectively managed by chiropractic manipulation than treatments
commonly administered by medical professionals.
References:
Coulter, I., et al. "The appropriateness
of manipulation and mobilization of the cervical spine." Santa
Monica, California: RAND, 1996.
Aker, P., et al. "Conservative management
of mechanical neck pain: systematic overview and meta-analysis." British
Medical Journal, Vol. 313 (1996): 1291-1296.
Spitzer, W., et al. "Scientific monograph
of the Quebec task force on whiplash-associated disorders: redefining
whiplash and its management." Spine, Vol. 20 (1995): 85.
Headaches
There are several types of headaches, including
migraine, tension and cervicogenic (arising from the cervical spine).
Numerous controlled trials now support the effectiveness of chiropractic
treatment for all three. In a controlled trial conducted by Macquarie
University in Australia, for example, 172 migraine sufferers were
treated with spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) for a six-month period.
Results showed that over 20% of participants reported a dramatic
reduction in the number of migraines experienced after only two months
of therapy. Likewise, the majority of participants reported a marked
improvement in the severity of their migraine episodes.
References:
Bonello, R., et al. "A Randomized
Controlled Trial of Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation Therapy for
Migraine." Proceedings of the 5th Biennial Congress of the World
Federation of Chiropractic (1999): 183-184.
Bronfort, G., et al. "The Efficacy of
Spinal Manipulation, Amitriptyline and the Combination of Both Therapies
for the Prophylaxis of Migraine Headache." The Journal of
Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, Vol. 21 (1998):
511-519.
Christensen, H.W., et al. "The Effect of
Spinal Manipulation in the Treatment of Cervicogenic Headache." The
Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, Vol. 20
(1997): 326-330.
Boline, P., et al. "Spinal Manipulation vs
Amitriptyline for the Treatment of Chronic Tension-Type Headaches."
The Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, Vol.
18 (1995): 148-154.
Parker G.B., et al. "Why Does Migraine
Improve during a Clinical Trial? Further Results from a Trial of
Cervical Manipulation for Migraine." Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Medicine, Vol. 10 (1980): 192-198.
Parker G., et al. "A Controlled Trial of
Cervical Manipulation for Migraine." Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Medicine, Vol. 8 (1978): 589-593.
Colic
Studies suggest that infantile colic, a persistent
crying in otherwise healthy babies, may be attributed to problems in the
spine. In a study conducted in Denmark of 316 infants with both colic
and some form of spinal disturbance (i.e. limited movement of the back),
chiropractic treatment over the course of two weeks resulted in a 94%
success rate. In 60% of the infants, the symptoms stopped completely;
34% of infants showed significant improvement. In a more recent study,
researchers compared the treatment results of two groups of colicky
babies, with one group being treated by spinal manipulation and the
other by the drug dimethicone. Outcomes were measured in the number of
hours the babies cried, as recorded in a diary. During trial days four
to seven, babies being treated with spinal manipulation cried 1.4 hours
less than those being treated by dimethicone. On days eight through 11,
this number increased to 1.7 hours. The study concluded that spinal
manipulation can be an effective treatment in relieving infantile colic.
References:
Wiberg, J.M.M., et al. "The Short-Term
Effect of Spinal Manipulation in the Treatment of Infantile Colic: A
Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial with a Blinded Observer." Journal
of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, Vol. 22, No. 8
(1999).
Klougar, N., et al. "Infantile Colic
Treated by Chiropractors: A Prospective Study of 316 Cases." Journal
of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, Vol. 12 (1989):
281-288.
Asthma
The 1979 New Zealand Commission of Inquiry into
Chiropractic found that chiropractic treatment, paired with medical
care, can be an effective way of managing asthma. The inquiry cites the
case of a two-year-old asthmatic whose condition had not been improving
under the care of a medical specialist. Upon examination by a
chiropractor, it was suggested that the child may have fallen and
injured his neck. The chiropractor adjusted the patient's back and his
symptoms diminished significantly. Since then, studies have shown mixed
results in the effectiveness of chiropractic treatment in asthmatic
children with some form of spinal dysfunction. While patients have
reported relief from symptoms and decreased dependency on medication,
rates of peak airflow have shown less improvement.
References:
Balon, J., et al. "A Comparision of Active
and Simulated Chiropractic Manipulation as Adjunctive Treatment for
Childhood Asthma." New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 339
(1998): 1013-1020.
Bronfort, G. "Asthma and Chiropractic." European
Journal of Chiropractic, Vol. 44 (1996): 1-7.
Hviid, C. "A Comparison of the Effect of
Chiropractic Treatment on Respiratory Function in Patients with
Respiratory Distress Symptoms and Patients without." Bulletin of
the European Chiropractic Union, Vol. 26 (1978): 17-34.
Enuresis (bed-wetting)
Twenty percent of children between the ages of four
and five suffer from bed-wetting. While the causes are not entirely
known, chiropractors have reported successful treatment in bed wetters
with some form of spinal dysfunction. In an Australian study of 171
children between the ages of four and 15, chiropractic treatment alone
was found to be more effective than psychotherapy, but less effective
than dry bed training methods. Chiropractors believe that combining
chiropractic care with other treatment methods, such as fluid
restriction, would improve these results significantly.
References:
LeBoeuf-Yde, C., et al. "Chiropractic Care
of Children with Nocturnal Enuresis: A Prospective Outcome Study." The
Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, Vol. 14
(1991): 110-115.
Otitis media (middle ear infection)
Otitis media (OM) is an inflammation of the middle ear
caused by complications of colds, sore throats and sinusitis. While
chiropractic treatment is not advised for the treatment of OM, in some
cases it has been known to prevent chronic cases. A 1992 US study
examined a two-year-old girl suffering from chronic OM in both ears,
despite several routine treatments with antibiotics. After six months
without results, her parents consulted a chiropractor. The first
chiropractic examination found that the girl's spine was out of
alignment and after an initial treatment to restore the normal range of
motion, there was a significant reduction in pain and ear discharge;
further treatment brought total relief. Any recurrences over the next
six months were alleviated after chiropractic care and today the girl is
free of symptoms. The likely explanation for these results is that
chiropractic manipulation restores motion in the spine, which alters the
nervous system and therefore improves the drainage of the ear's
eustachian tubes. Further studies are now underway to determine whether
medical treatment, chiropractic treatment or a combination of both is
the most effective method of treatment for patients with OM.
References:
Fallon, J.M. "The Role of Chiropractic Adjustment
in the Care and Treatment of 332 Children with Otitis Media." Journal
of Clinical Chiropractic Pediatrics, Vol. 2 (1997): 167-183.
Froehle, R.M. "Ear Infection: A Retrospective
Study Examining Improvement from Chiropractic Care and Analyzing for
Influencing Factors." Journal of Manipulative and Physiology
Therapeutics, Vol. 19, No. 3 (March-April 1996): 169-177.
Phillips, N.J. "Vertebral Subluxation and Otitis
Media: A Case Study, Chiropractic." Journal Chiropractic
Research and Clinical Investigation, Vol. 8 (1992): 38-39.
Pelvic disorders and dysmenorrhea (Painful
Menstruation)
In a study published in The Journal of Manipulative
and Physiological Therapeutics, it was found that a variety of
gynecological, sexual and bowel disorders may be successfully managed
under chiropractic care. The most detailed report cited the case of a
41-year-old woman who had experienced several years of low back and
pelvic disorders, including difficulty in urination. After chiropractic
examination, it was determined that the woman had a disk herniation in
the low back. Adjustment by a chiropractor brought relief from the pain
and an end to her urinary problems. Likewise, a study done by the
National College of Chiropractic found that chiropractic care has
provided relief in patients suffering from dysmenorrhea (painful
menstruation). Further research on this subject is underway.
References:
Browning, J.E. "Chiropractic Distractive
Decompression in the Treatment of Pelvic Pain and Organic Dysfunction in
Patients with Evidence of Lower Sacral Nerve Root Compression." The
Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, Vol. 11
(1998): 436-442.
Kokjohn, K., et al. "The Effect of Spinal
Manipulation on Pain and Prostaglandin Levels in Primary Dysmenorrhea."
The Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, Vol.
15 (1992): 279-285.
Cost-effectiveness
A 1997 study conducted by Miron Stano at Michigan's
Oakland University compared the costs of health care for patients of
medicine and patients of chiropractic. By reviewing the insurance claims
paid by patients, Stano found that those receiving chiropractic
treatment, either by itself or with medical care, had health-care costs
averaging $1,000 less than those receiving medical care alone.
Furthermore, patients receiving only chiropractic care paid 30% less in
total insurance costs than those under the care of a medical doctor.
Similarly, numerous studies show that patients with low back pain who
are treated by a chiropractor often avoid thousands of dollars in
medical expenses, such as surgery and medication.
References:
Journals
Smith, M. and M. Stano. "Costs and Recurrences of
Chiropractic and Medical Episodes of Low-Back Care." The Journal
of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, Vol. 20, No. 1
(1997): 5-12.
Books
Chapman-Smith, D. The Chiropractic Profession.
West Des Moines: NCMIC Group Inc., 2000.
Patient Satisfaction
A 1989 survey conducted by Dr. Daniel Cherkin and Dr.
Frederick MacCornack found that patients receiving care from health
maintenance organizations (HMOs) in the state of Washington were three
times as likely to report satisfaction with chiropractic care than they
were from other health-care providers. Early in the 1990s, a similar
study conducted by the Gallup Organization found that 90% of
chiropractic patients felt their care was effective. Over 80% were
satisfied with their care, and close to 75% felt that their expectations
had been met.
References:
Cherkin, D.C. and F.A. MacCornack. "Patient
Evaluations of Low Back Pain from Family Physicians and
Chiropractors." Western Journal of Medicine, Vol. 151, No. 1
(July 1989): 83-84.