Misplaced Pages

Talk:Spinal manipulation: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:37, 24 February 2013 editRaeky (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers9,784 edits Undid revision 540138791 by DVMt (talk) Still relevant for the RFC, stop deleting it.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:49, 21 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,891,546 editsm →top: Category:Articles with conflicting quality ratings: -Start, keep B; cleanupTag: AWB 
(201 intermediate revisions by 37 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{WPMED|class=B|importance=Mid}}
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Spinal manipulation/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
{{WikiProject Medicine |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Chiropractic|importance=Top}}
}}
{{Archives |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=1 |units=month |index= }}


== Emergency Medicine Section Removal ==
==Redirect for lack of a proper article==
The redirect takes one to the ] concept of ], which is not exactly the same as spinal manipulation. The intent is very different. A separate article for scientifically justified ] is needed. MDs and PTs do not manipulate for the purpose of removing non-existent chiropractic ]s, which is the chiropractic justification for using "adjustments." -- ] 05:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


The Emergency Medicine section and its contents should be removed from "Spinal Manipulation". The section itself is also listed in ], and does not pertain to spinal manipulation.
==From ] article==


== Removal of 2016 meta-analysis from "Neck Pain" ==
In the context of ]s, '''manipulation''' is the skilled passive movement of a joint that is applied at varying speeds and amplitudes, including a small-amplitude/high velocity therapeutic movement or thrust. It can also refer to the process of bringing fragments of ] bone or ] joints into normal ] alignment (otherwise known as 'setting' the bone).


@QuackGuru, you removed a section where I wrote: A 2016 meta-anyalysis concluded "There was moderate level evidence to support the immediate effectiveness of cervical spine manipulation in treating people with cervical radiculopathy." <ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Zhu L, Wei X, Wang S |title=Does cervical spine manipulation reduce pain in people with degenerative cervical radiculopathy? A systematic review of the evidence, and a meta-analysis |journal=Clinical Rehabilitation |volume=30 |issue=2 |pages=145-55 |date=Feb 2015 |pmid=25681406 |doi=10.1177/0269215515570382 |url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25681406}}</ref>{{reflist|close=1}}
Manipulation does not imply specificity or the correction of the ] ], and therefore is not entirely synonymous with the chiropractic ].
-- ] 20:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


Citing "No it didn't" as your reason for removing it. My statement was a direct quote of the conclusion, would you please elaborate?] (]) 14:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
==POV issues==


My mistake it was CFCF who removed it. My question stands.] (]) 17:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC) ] (]) 17:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
There are big issues in this article, most notably the recent dominant inclusions from Edzard Ernst who is not a specialist or expert in manipulation/chiropractic and the overall bad tone of the safety section, POV issues with attribution to chiropractic "strokes" when DCs were not involved as well as the underreporting which is challenged in physical med journals. Furthermore, there are major omissions in recent papers which have studied the stroke issue in depth by experts in SMT and stroke. ] (]) 23:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
:What is interesting is the authors names. See Zhu L, Wei X, and Wang S. ] (]) 19:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
:We disagree as to what the POV problems are. That's OK. What's ''not'' OK is your unsourced assertion that 90% of spinal manipulations are performed by chiropractors, even if you restrict yourself to manipulations in which the practitioner is trained. &mdash; ] ] 04:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
::What does that have to do with review's inclusion into this wiki?] (]) 20:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
::Before we begin, I just want to confirm that you're really the ], mathematician extraordinaire, right? Good, now we've noted that, I would like to remind of you of a little something, I urge you to look at the scope of the article. Do you see that medical stub there? Well, that falls under my domain, my expetise. My expertise is chiropractic medicine and spinal manipulation is the characteristic treatment. Admin Baegis had some which he opined "If you struggled with passing calculus, don't go mucking about with the ] article.". That's some good advice, methinks.
:::Asian authors have been known to right very . ] (]) 20:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
* Three authors from China. Enough said. Publication bias and fraud are endemic in Chinese medical research (), to the point that we'd only consider including a Chinese study if it appeared in an absolute top tier journal. Which this is not. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
::::The source seems good for inclusion to me. The source meets MEDRS requirements for high-quality medical sources (review and meta-analysis) and the journal is very high-quality for a rehabilitation journal, with indexing in Medline and an impact factor ~2.5. I am not aware of any policy that suggests Chinese authors make the source inherently unreliable. I have posted at the reliable sources noticeboard for other opinions.] (]) 21:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
::::: I'm sure it would seem good to anyone unaware of the problem fo fabrication of data and systemic bias towards SCAM in Chinese studies. It's almost as if that's why they do it... <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
::So, is the source you wanted, (there are more) and it is considered the authoritative source whose chapter on SMT alone would be extremely beneficial to include with the plethora of research into the neurophysiologal responses and proposed theories too. After all, chiropractors are the expert providers of spinal adjustment, manipulation and manual therapy. There are also tons more to add to the article from a scientific, cultural and historical POV whilst also addressing some severely biased POV issues. Here's another: Can you please explain to me rationally why section here on further reading consists of texts from 2 MDs, 5 PTs, and 0 DCs. Because that seems rather odd when you factor than 90% of spinal manipulations are performed by DCs. Looking forward to working with you. ] (]) 07:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:::In the absence of evidence to the contrary, that seems a valid source for the statement, but please include the source. However, only (some) chiropractors understand the difference (if any) between ] and ], so that it is still ''not'' the case that the chiropractic POV should dominate this article. Please do not add unsourced statements, but you probably should add more reading material. As an aside, you seem to be suggesting that this article is a POV fork of ], and should be merged into that article. I'm not sure I agree with that suggestion, but it seems to be what you ''are'' suggesting. &mdash; ] ] 15:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
::::I think you may be confused, or misinformed, Mr. Rubin. The chiropractic scientists who are publishing the texts are quite clear that SMT is interchangeable with adjustment and this is the position of the majority of the profession. I think you may be referring to the minority position amongst "ultra-straights" who may still carry some metaphysical interpretations; but this is the fringe position within the profession. I also never suggested that chiropractic POV should dominate the article; but they are the experts in manipulation. The article will be scientific; it's a medical procedure (it falls under the wikiproject medicine scope) and I shall bring it up to snuff so that it can become, in time, a FA. ] (]) 18:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::Your editing style looks familiar. Have I worked with you before under another name?
:::::In any case, as you assert that ] and ] are the same topic, you should be supporting merging the articles, before doing serious work updating one or the other.
:::::You haven't ''said'' that the chiropractic point of view should dominate the article, but you've said that the ''scientific'' point of view should dominate (oddly enough, I disagree — most of the ''medical'' discussion of ] is not scientific), and that the relevant scientists are chiropractors.
:::::&mdash; ] ] 18:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
::::::To be clear; you disagree the spinal manipulation is a medical procedure that does not have much scientific evidence? What exactly are you disputing here so we can iron out issues before I begin to bring the article up to wikipedia's project medicine standards? Thanks in advance. ] (]) 19:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Is that a double negative or a triple negative? In any case, I believe that it is not the case that spinal manipulation is a medical procedure which has scientific evidence. Because of disputes originated by chiropractors, it's not clear whether ] is the same as ], and whether anyone can ''reliably'' distinguish between the two without knowing the ''intent'' of the practitioner. &mdash; ] ] 22:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


I have just modified 5 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
Hi Guys, if I may. It is widely regarded that chiropractors perform approx 90% of manipulations in the US, but not in the world. In fact, in the UK, the majority of manipulations are performed by osteopaths, who outnumber chiropractors by approx 2:1. As WP is a global source of information, I think it would be wise to note the limitations of the 90% statement (specifically that it relates only to the US). By the same token, spinal manipulation is the generic term for the intervention applied by chiropractors, osteopaths, and physiotherapists/physical therapists, etc. If the chiropractic profession insist on claiming that the term 'adjustment' includes other non-manipulation interventions *as they often appear to), then I would be very much against an article merge.] (]) 15:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060530110614/http://www.nelh.nhs.uk/hth/chiro.asp to http://www.nelh.nhs.uk/hth/chiro.asp
BTW, if we are being strict with sources here, we need a better source than a textbook for the 90% claim. This is secondary referencing unless the original piece of research is cited.] (]) 15:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927011638/http://www.ptjournal.org/cgi/content/full/79/1/50/F1 to http://www.ptjournal.org/cgi/content/full/79/1/50/F1
::I have no problem with changing to North America. The same situation applies in Canada where DCs do 90% of the manips. As for secondary sources, according to a strict interpretation of WP:MEDRS these are preferred; but if you want an actual paper, it's easy enough to fetch. I support the merger of spinal adjustment and manipulation; adjustment (as interpreted by the STRAIGHT DCs) is a subset of spinal manipulation, whereas the MIXERS view it essentially as synonymous with SMT. Waaaaaaaaay too much is being made behind of the 1910's philo of adjustment which is tenuously being guarded by the extreme fringe within the chiropractic profession. It's time to reflect the contemporary POV of manips (by the ''mainstream'' of DCs) It seems like people's beliefs system around here could use an adjustment! <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:24, May 4, 2008</small><!-- Template:Unsigned2 -->
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070225062108/http://www.ptjournal.org/cgi/content/full/79/1/50/F2 to http://www.ptjournal.org/cgi/content/full/79/1/50/F2
:::I've got a problem with that. It ''still'' seems improbable to me, and it's '''not''' sourced. As for an adjustment of ''your'' attitude, as you have been sanctioned for POV edits under another name, the mainstream ''scientific'' or ''medical'' point of view is what should be used, not the "mainstream" ] point of view. As far as I can tell, the mainstream ''medical'' point of view on spinal manipulation is that it is frequently ''called'' ], but that no one, not even practicing chiropractors, can define the difference. &mdash; ] ] 17:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080625173624/http://www.hom.ucalgary.ca/Dayspapers2002.pdf to http://www.hom.ucalgary.ca/Dayspapers2002.pdf
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.aaompt.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828022608/http://www.ifomt.org/ to http://www.ifomt.org/


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
== Establishing context in the lead ==


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
People will be confused, as I was, if they read the lead of this article and there is no reference to chiropracty. There's a lengthy debate above over whether this should be merged into chiropractic adjustment. Clearly we should note chiropractic adjustment in the lead. ] | (] - ]) 22:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 12:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Firstly, there are more professional groups than just chiropractic (please note proper term) that perform spinal manipulation, and have contributed to the research base on the subject. These include osteopaths, osteopathic physicians, and physical therapists. There is adequate provision to describe this usage in the section called 'Current Providers'. Furthermore, the 'Chiropractic' article clearly refers to this one. If we start referring to individual professional groups in the lead, then we would need to refer to the others - this would not be useful. I am therefore re-deleting your (ImperfectlyInformed) edits, and hope you don't persist with them.] (]) 18:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


== Propose replacing most of Effectiveness section ==
<s>== ] Safety, proposal to merge ] with ] ==


Currently, the Effectiveness section of this article cites numerous conflicting ]. I propose replacing directly citing systematic reviews with citing and , unless the individual systematic review is specifically relevant (ie, the ]/] recommendation).
There is an eggregious amount of text dedicated to the safety of SMT with a lot of puffery, quotes and outdated studies. It can be more concise. Also, Spinal adjustment can be incorporated into this article with a a sub-section dedicates to the differences between 'adjustment' and 'manipulation' if any. As per ], high quality research is required, not merely conjecture! ] (]) 19:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC) </s> <sup>''(Edits of indef blocked user stricken.)''</sup>


Please let me know if there is any reason not to do this. --] 01:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
: ] has ''"been '''blocked indefinitely''' from editing in accordance with ] for ], ], ] and ]."'' I have stricken his remarks, as striking or removal is customary in such situations. -- <i><b><font color="004000">]</font></b></i> / <b><font color="990099" size="1">]</font></b> 06:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

== Assendelft et al Cochrane Review ==

I have added a reference at ] with a Cochrane Review by Assendelft et al . Could it contribute to this article too? If so, perhaps an active editor here could find the right place to add it.--] (]) 19:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

== NCCAM on SM ==


] (]) 15:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

== Is Spinal Manipulation for Neck Pain Safe? ==

Here's something for the safety section. While some of this isn't MEDRS compliant for medical facts, it does refer to such sources, as well as documenting the controversy and public debate:

* '']'', By Michael Smith, June 07, 2012

* '']'', by Lara Salahi, June 8, 2012

* '']'', by Jennifer Huget, 06/07/2012

The UK ] considers the debate notable enough to weigh in on the discussion with an analysis of the debate and some advice for the public:

* '']'', June 8 2012

They provided these links for further information:

: '''Links to the headlines'''

:* The Independent, June 8 2012

:* Daily Mail, June 8 2012

:* The Daily Telegraph, June 8 2012

:* BBC News, June 8 2012

: '''Links to the science'''

:* Cassidy JD, Bronfort G, Hartvigsen J. BMJ. Published online June 8 2012

:* Wand BM, Heine PJ, O’Connell NE. BMJ. Published online June 8 2012

] (]) 14:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

== Orphaned references in ] ==

I check pages listed in ] to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for ] in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of ]'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for ''this'' article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

<b>Reference named "NBCE_techniques":</b><ul>
<li>From ]: {{cite book|title= Job Analysis of Chiropractic|chapter= Professional functions and treatment procedures|year=2005|pages=121–38|author= Christensen MG, Kollasch MW|location= Greeley, CO|publisher= ]|chapterurl=http://nbce.org/pdfs/job-analysis/chapter_10.pdf|format=PDF|accessdate=2008-08-25|isbn=1-884457-05-3}}{{dead link|date=June 2012}}</li>
<li>From ]: {{cite book |title= Job Analysis of Chiropractic |chapter= Professional functions and treatment procedures |year=2005 |pages=121–38 |author= Christensen MG, Kollasch MW |location= Greeley, CO |publisher= ] |chapterurl=http://nbce.org/pdfs/job-analysis/chapter_10.pdf |format=PDF |accessdate=2008-08-25 |isbn=1-884457-05-3}}</li>
</ul>

<b>Reference named "WHO-guidelines":</b><ul>
<li>From ]: </li>
<li>From ]: {{cite journal |author= World Health Organization|year=2005|title= WHO guidelines on basic training and safety in chiropractic|url=http://www.who.int/medicines/areas/traditional/Chiro-Guidelines.pdf|format=PDF|isbn= 92-4-159371-7|accessdate=2008-02-29}}</li>
</ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. ]] 19:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

== Something is missing... ==

Over the past year, glowing descriptions of the history of spinal manipulation have been added, but the definition has been lost. In addition, it has transformed from a general description of spinal manipulation to one about spinal manipulation in the context of ]. The present article probably should be ''redirected'' to ], or comments about spinal manipulation as not seen in the context of chiropractic are restored. — ] ] 17:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
:We can't do a re-direct because osteopaths and physical therapists also perform SM. This is the 'generic' page for SM so that it is inclusive all of type, techniques of spinal manipulation. It's also extremely hard to omit chiropractic from the SM entirely since they are the dominant provider of SM services. I can add the specific biomechanical characteristics (i.e. HVLA thrust). ] (]) 17:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
::I have done a few edits to address your concerns, specifically in the lead and generalizing chiro stuff to simply 'manual and manipulative therapy'. ] (]) 17:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)



==Changes==

These changes are more or less the ones made to the article on Chiropractic which have been rejected. As there are attempts to put the exact same content in both places we need to look at the issue of one page being a bit of a co tract of the other. Also seems like a lot of the discussion around safety disappeared in these edits. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

:Safety clearly appears in the article. Per WP:BRD, please discuss what specific issues you prior to deleting secondary sources. ] (]) 15:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
:Edit update: As seen here safety is clearly covered. Also, please note that SMT≠Chiropractic. ] (]) 15:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
::Per ] I shall revert again. There is no consensus for your overly optimistic version. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

:::That's BRRD Doc. Overly optimistic? You have white-washed the whole article and deleted 24 additional references. This brings the total of deleted references of manual and manipulative therapy to over 100. Yes, you read that correctly. These reckless edits without any discussion when I asked you to list your grievances and you say "overly optimistic". This is suppression of evidence Doc James. It's not going to go unchallenged. There is no consensus for "your" preferred version. In fact you are edit warring (as an admin no less) but I shall be the bigger person and talk it through. ] (]) 21:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
::::I look forwards to seeing the RfC you put together. Continuing to insulting others and the recent review articles that disagree with your personal position is not going to change much. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::Again, ] my primary concern which is the deletion of 100 research papers including dozens of systematic reviews, all written from 2005-2013) have disappeared in your editing at chiropractic, vertebral subluxation and spinal manipulative therapy. We can say you've ] quite clear. Suppression of evidence regarding manual and manipulative therapies. My position is one of science and not relying on fringe, outlier papers on manipulative therapy that directly disagree with the Cochrane reviews. This is another point you have failed to address. Please address these concerns in your next post. ] (]) 21:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::Look in the nicest terms possible there appears to be a lot of misinterpretation and selective usage of the literature in the edits I reverted. We seem to be using a different number system and talking a different language per ]. Create a RfC and get consensus. If you can convince the community that your edits are an improvement they will stick otherwise they will not. Continuing to call all the systematic reviews which disagree with you fringe will get you no were. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

:::::::I'm not opposed to the inclusion of specifically Ernst and Pozakski papers despite the fact that the Cochrane reviews completely disagrees with them. We agreed on this 2 weeks ago. The point is, you requested 5 specific papers be included (which is in the draft proposal) but you deleted 100 sources to do so. That's not right. ] (]) 22:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::::"we agreed" did we? can you provide a link. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::Yep. See chiropractic talk. This is minor however. ] why you deleted 100 sources to get 5 in? ] (]) 23:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::::So no link than. Not really anything more to say. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::::::You can comb through the links. Again, for the 4th time, and this is getting quite tendentious, why did you delete over 100 sources regarding basic sciences of spinal manipulation and joint dysfunction? You also deleted papers that relate to research pertaining specifically to spinal manipulation, chiropractic and joint dysfunction. ] (]) 00:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

::::::::::::::There is a misleading edit summary here which states the removal of 'promotional' material which is 23 additional citations on the generic topic of SMT that were WP:MEDRS compliant. Then there was this massive import here from Chiropractic inserts chiropractic specific material into the general spinal manipulation category. Why is Doc James trying to white-wash the spinal manipulation article with ] with respect to safety leading to problems with ], ] etc.

== RfC Effectiveness of SMT for LBP ==
{{RfC|rfcid=CD93247}}

Proposed wording:

"Scientific consensus suggests manual and manipulative therapies are equivalent to interventions such as standard medical care, exercise therapy or physiotherapy for LBP ." <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:27, 24 February 2013‎</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

===Evidence against SMT as a therapeutic intervention for LBP===
*SMT is not effective for LBP and it is a placebo. Authors: 2. Edzard Ernst, Paul Posadzki.
* Journals: New Zealand Journal of Medicine (IF 0.6-0.7) and Pain Medicine (IF 2.346).
:::# written by Posadzki P, Ernst E. say ''"Collectively these data fail to demonstrate convincingly that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for any condition."''
:::#, also by Posadzki P. states ''"Collectively, these data fail to demonstrate that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for pain management."''

Represents the minority/outlier viewpoint. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:27, 24 February 2013‎</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

===Evidence for SMT as a therapeutic intervention for LBP===
*SMT is equivalent to standard medical care, exercise therapy and physiotherapy, for LBP. Authors: 41. Rubenstein et al.
* Journals cited: Spine (IF 3.290), Cochrane review (IF 5.715), Annals of Internal Medicine (IF 16.7), Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology (IF 1.969), European Spine Journal (IF 1.96), Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (IF 2.533).
:::# ''"High quality evidence suggests that there is no clinically relevant difference between SMT and other interventions...in patients with chronic low-back pain."'' and the plain language summary expands to say: ''"...spine manipulation appears to be as effective as other common therapies prescribed for chronic low-back pain, such as, exercise therapy, standard medical care or physiotherapy."''
:::# concludes that spine manipulation achieves ''"equivalent or superior improvement in pain and function when compared with other commonly used interventions, such as physical modalities, medication, education, or exercise, for short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up."''
:::# concludes ''"Combined chiropractic interventions slightly improved pain and disability in the short-term and pain in the medium-term for acute and subacute LBP. However, there is currently no evidence that supports or refutes that these interventions provide a clinically meaningful difference for pain or disability in people with LBP when compared to other interventions."''
:::# cautiously concludes ''"SMT is no more effective in participants with acute low-back pain than inert interventions, sham SMT, or when added to another intervention. SMT also appears to be no better than other recommended therapies. Our evaluation is limited by the small number of studies per comparison, outcome, and time interval."''
:::# concludes ''"Therapies with good evidence of moderate efficacy for chronic or subacute low back pain are cognitive-behavioral therapy, exercise, spinal manipulation, and interdisciplinary rehabilitation."''
:::# found that manipulation is similar in effe to medical care with exercise.
:::# supports the use of SMT in clinical practice as a cost-effective treatment when used alone or in combination with other treatment approaches.
:::# Combining spinal manipulative therapy with other interventions (multi-modal) are more beneficial than unimodal therapeutic approaches.
:::# There is evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of the guideline-endorsed treatments of interdisciplinary rehabilitation, exercise, acupuncture, spinal manipulation and cognitive-behavioural therapy for sub-acute or chronic LBP.
:::#. Studies of nonoperative treatments demonstrated greater value for graded activity over physical therapy and pain management; spinal manipulation over exercise; behavioral therapy and physiotherapy over advice; and acupuncture and exercise over usual general practitioner care.
:::# Therapies with good evidence of moderate efficacy for chronic or subacute low back pain are cognitive-behavioral therapy, exercise, spinal manipulation, and interdisciplinary rehabilitation. From the ].

Represents the mainstream, majority viewpoint. Note the interdisciplinary consensus with 39 of 41 authors agreeing with a common , mainstream, majority viewpoint. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:27, 24 February 2013‎</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

===Comments===
* I find it hard to believe that this is an exhaustive literature search, and not some cherry picked list of sources. People coming to this RfC should note that ] who opened this discussion is a ] (See http://wikidashboard.appspot.com/enwiki/User:DVMt ) to promote Chiropractic as not pseudoscience but mainstream medicine, and he also has a ] being a chiropractor himself. What exactly is the proposed language for this RfC to consider? And what exactly is the dispute? RFC is a process for resolving something that normally can't be resolved via normal discourse and consensus in the article's talk space. —&nbsp;<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 21:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
::First problem I have is "scientific consensus" there clearly isn't a consensus if there's reliable sources that are arguing against, and multiple of them. How is source #4 support your argument when it says SMT is no more effective than sham SMT, it's saying it's placebo effect at best. —&nbsp;<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 21:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
::: If you are concerned about the thoroughness of the list of secondary sources, feel free to suggest additions to the list. Otherwise please discuss proposed edits, and not editors. Source 4 still says no different from other therapies (i.e. standard medical care, exercise therapy or physiotherapy). ] (]) 21:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:49, 21 November 2024

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconMedicine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconChiropractic Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Chiropractic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chiropractic on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChiropracticWikipedia:WikiProject ChiropracticTemplate:WikiProject ChiropracticChiropractic
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Archiving icon
Archives
Index
Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Emergency Medicine Section Removal

The Emergency Medicine section and its contents should be removed from "Spinal Manipulation". The section itself is also listed in joint manipulation, and does not pertain to spinal manipulation.

Removal of 2016 meta-analysis from "Neck Pain"

@QuackGuru, you removed a section where I wrote: A 2016 meta-anyalysis concluded "There was moderate level evidence to support the immediate effectiveness of cervical spine manipulation in treating people with cervical radiculopathy."

  1. Zhu L, Wei X, Wang S (Feb 2015). "Does cervical spine manipulation reduce pain in people with degenerative cervical radiculopathy? A systematic review of the evidence, and a meta-analysis". Clinical Rehabilitation. 30 (2): 145–55. doi:10.1177/0269215515570382. PMID 25681406.

Citing "No it didn't" as your reason for removing it. My statement was a direct quote of the conclusion, would you please elaborate?Jmg873 (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

My mistake it was CFCF who removed it. My question stands.Jmg873 (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Jmg873 (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

What is interesting is the authors names. See Zhu L, Wei X, and Wang S. QuackGuru (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
What does that have to do with review's inclusion into this wiki?Jmg873 (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Asian authors have been known to right very favorably reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
The source seems good for inclusion to me. The source meets MEDRS requirements for high-quality medical sources (review and meta-analysis) and the journal is very high-quality for a rehabilitation journal, with indexing in Medline and an impact factor ~2.5. I am not aware of any policy that suggests Chinese authors make the source inherently unreliable. I have posted at the reliable sources noticeboard for other opinions.2001:56A:75B7:9B00:A5FC:56E7:D1A6:3966 (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure it would seem good to anyone unaware of the problem fo fabrication of data and systemic bias towards SCAM in Chinese studies. It's almost as if that's why they do it... Guy (Help!) 21:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Spinal manipulation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Propose replacing most of Effectiveness section

Currently, the Effectiveness section of this article cites numerous conflicting systematic reviews. I propose replacing directly citing systematic reviews with citing A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation and the article's 2011 update, unless the individual systematic review is specifically relevant (ie, the ACP/APS recommendation).

Please let me know if there is any reason not to do this. -- userdude 01:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Categories: