- Chiropractic Resource Organization.     Support Chiropractic Research!

Monthly Archives: January 2013


There Will Never Be Enough Research To Satisfy Our Critics

By |January 24, 2013|Chiropractic Care, Evidence-based Medicine, Health Care Reform, Patient Satisfaction, Spinal Manipulation|

There Will Never Be Enough Research
To Satisfy Our Critics

The Chiro.Org Blog

A Chiro.Org Editorial

For some, there will never be enough research to support the use of chiropractic. These people will forever hide behind the claim that they wish to protect patients from quackish practices.

For those who may have forgotten, or for those who never knew, organized medicine spent decades and tens of millions of dollars trying to discredit and destroy chiropractic. Today, the vestiges of that oppression is still found on fringe web sites that ignore the body of peer-reviewed research supporting chiropractic care.

The Wilk anti-trust case against the AMA and 20 other named medical groups revealed that the AMA Plan was to:

  • Undermine Chiropractic schools

  • Undercut insurance programs for Chiropractic patients

  • Conceal evidence of the effectiveness of Chiropractic care

  • Subvert government inquires into the effectiveness of Chiropractic, and

  • Promote other activities that would control the monopoly that the AMA had on health care

  • They even threatened their own ranks: any MD who taught in our schools, performed research with chiropractors, or accepted a referral from, or made a referral to a chiropractor, would lose their hospital privileges, leaving them unable to treat patients.

while, all along, they knew that:

There also was some evidence before the Committee that chiropractic was effective – more effective than the medical profession in treating certain kinds of problems such as workmen’s back injuries.

The Committee on Quackery was also aware that some medical physicians believed chiropractic to be effective and that chiropractors were better trained to deal with musculoskeletal problems than most medical physicians.
(Opinion pp. 7)


Medical Students Take the Complementary, Alternative and Integrative Medicine Attitudes Questionnaire (CAIMAQ)

By |January 24, 2013|Evidence-based Medicine, Outcome Assessment|

Medical Students Take the Complementary, Alternative and Integrative Medicine Attitudes Questionnaire (CAIMAQ)

The Chiro.Org Blog

SOURCE:   Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (eCAM) 2011 (Apr 14)

Center for East-West Medicine,
Department of Medicine,
David Geffen School of Medicine,
University of California,
Los Angeles, CA, USA

While the use of complementary, alternative and integrative medicine (CAIM) is substantial, it continues to exist at the periphery of allopathic medicine. Understanding the attitudes of medical students toward CAIM will be useful in understanding future integration of CAIM and allopathic medicine. This study was conducted to develop and evaluate an instrument and assess medical students’ attitudes toward CAIM. The Complementary, Alternative and Integrative Medicine Attitudes Questionnaire (CAIMAQ) was developed by a panel of experts in CAIM, allopathic medicine, medical education and survey development. A total of 1770 CAIMAQ surveys (51% of US medical schools participated) were obtained in a national sample of medical students in 2007.

Factor analysis of the CAIMAQ revealed five distinct attitudinal domains:

  • desirability of CAIM therapies,
  • progressive patient/physician health care roles,
  • mind-body-spirit connection,
  • principles of allostasis and
  • a holistic understanding of disease.

The students held the most positive attitude for the “mind-body-spirit connection” and the least positive for the “desirability of CAIM therapies”. This study provided initial support for the reliability of the CAIMAQ. The survey results indicated that in general students responded more positively to the principles of CAIM than to CAIM treatment. A higher quality of CAIM-related medical education and expanded research into CAIM therapies would facilitate appropriate integration of CAIM into medical curricula. The most significant limitation of this study is a low response rate, and further work is required to assess more representative populations in order to determine whether the relationships found in this study are generalizable. (more…)

Cochrane systematic review has demonstrated that antioxidant supplements may increase mortality

By |January 13, 2013|Nutrition|

Source Cochrane Summaries

Antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in healthy participants and patients with various diseases

Bjelakovic G, Nikolova D, Gluud LL, Simonetti RG, Gluud C

Previous research on animal and physiological models suggests that antioxidant supplements have beneficial effects that may prolong life. Some observational studies also suggest that antioxidant supplements may prolong life, whereas other observational studies demonstrate neutral or harmful effects. Our Cochrane review from 2008 demonstrated that antioxidant supplements seem to increase mortality. This review is now updated.

The present systematic review included 78 randomised clinical trials. In total, 296,707 participants were randomised to antioxidant supplements (beta-carotene, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, and selenium) versus placebo or no intervention. Twenty-six trials included 215,900 healthy participants. Fifty-two trials included 80,807 participants with various diseases in a stable phase (including gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, neurological, ocular, dermatological, rheumatoid, renal, endocrinological, or unspecified diseases). A total of 21,484 of 183,749 participants (11.7%) randomised to antioxidant supplements and 11,479 of 112,958 participants (10.2%) randomised to placebo or no intervention died. The trials appeared to have enough statistical similarity that they could be combined. When all of the trials were combined, antioxidants may or may not have increased mortality depending on which statistical combination method was employed; the analysis that is typically used when similarity is present demonstrated that antioxidant use did slightly increase mortality (that is, the patients consuming the antioxidants were 1.03 times as likely to die as were the controls). When analyses were done to identify factors that were associated with this finding, the two factors identified were better methodology to prevent bias from being a factor in the trial (trials with ‘low risk of bias’) and the use of vitamin A. In fact, when the trials with low risks of bias were considered separately, the increased mortality was even more pronounced (1.04 times as likely to die as were the controls). The potential damage from vitamin A disappeared when only the low risks of bias trials were considered. The increased risk of mortality was associated with beta-carotene and possibly vitamin E and vitamin A, but was not associated with the use of vitamin C or selenium. The current evidence does not support the use of antioxidant supplements in the general population or in patients with various diseases.

Authors’ conclusions: 

We found no evidence to support antioxidant supplements for primary or secondary prevention. Beta-carotene and vitamin E seem to increase mortality, and so may higher doses of vitamin A. Antioxidant supplements need to be considered as medicinal products and should undergo sufficient evaluation before marketing.

Abstract included here.

Comparison of Outcomes in Neck Pain Patients With and Without Dizziness

By |January 8, 2013|Chiropractic Care, Dizziness, Spinal Manipulation, Whiplash|

Comparison of Outcomes in Neck Pain Patients With and Without Dizziness

The Chiro.Org Blog

Chiropractic & Manual Therapies 2013 (Jan 7);   21:   3

B Kim Humphreys and Cynthia Peterson

University of Zürich and Orthopaedic University Hospital Balgrist, Forchstrasse 340, 8008 Zürich, Switzerland

Background   The symptom ‘dizziness’ is common in patients with chronic whiplash related disorders. However, little is known about dizziness in neck pain patients who have not suffered whiplash. Therefore, the purposes of this study are to compare baseline factors and clinical outcomes of neck pain patients with and without dizziness undergoing chiropractic treatment and to compare outcomes based on gender.

Methods   This prospective cohort study compares adult neck pain patients with dizziness (n = 177) to neck pain patients without dizziness (n = 228) who presented for chiropractic treatment, (no chiropractic or manual therapy in the previous 3 months). Patients completed the numerical pain rating scale (NRS) and Bournemouth questionnaire (BQN) at baseline. At 1, 3 and 6 months after start of treatment the NRS and BQN were completed along with the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale. Demographic information was also collected. Improvement at each follow-up data collection point was categorized using the PGIC as ‘improved’ or ‘not improved’. Differences between the two groups for NRS and BQN subscale and total scores were calculated using the unpaired Student’s t-test. Gender differences between the patients with dizziness were also calculated using the unpaired t-test.

Results   Females accounted for 75% of patients with dizziness. The majority of patients with and without dizziness reported clinically relevant improvement at 1, 3 and 6 months with 80% of patients with dizziness and 78% of patients without dizziness being improved at 6 months. Patients with dizziness reported significantly higher baseline NRS and BQN scores, but at 6 months there were no significant differences between patients with and without dizziness for any of the outcome measures. Females with dizziness reported higher levels of depression compared to males at 1, 3 and 6 months (p = 0.007, 0.005, 0.022).

Conclusions   Neck pain patients with dizziness reported significantly higher pain and disability scores at baseline compared to patients without dizziness. A high proportion of patients in both groups reported clinically relevant improvement on the PGIC scale. At 6 months after start of chiropractic treatment there were no differences in any outcome measures between the two groups.

There are many more articles like this @ our:

Vertigo and Chiropractic Page and our:

Whiplash and Chiropractic Page


The complaint of neck pain is second only to low back pain in terms of common musculoskeletal problems in society today with a lifetime prevalence of 26-71% and a yearly prevalence of 30-50%. [1, 2] Most concerning is that many patients, particularly those in the working population or who have suffered whiplash trauma, will become chronic and continue to report pain and disability for greater than 6-months. [3-6] In terms of symptoms, dizziness and unsteadiness are the most frequent complaints following pain for chronic whiplash sufferers with up to 70% of patients reporting these problems. [7, 8] Apart from whiplash trauma, little is known about dizziness in the chronic neck pain population and much remains unknown about the etiology of chronic neck pain in general. [9]

Gender differences in reporting pain intensity is currently a topic of debate. Recent research suggests that females report more pain because they feel pain more intensely than males over a variety of musculoskeletal complaints. [10, 11] Furthermore, LeResche suggests that these differences may not be taken into account by health care providers, leading to less than optimal pain management for females. [12] However gender differences in neck pain patients with or without dizziness have not been described with respect to clinical outcomes over time.

Therefore, the purposes of this study on neck pain patients receiving chiropractic care are twofold:

  1. to compare baseline variables and the clinical outcomes of neck pain patients with and without dizziness in terms of clinically relevant ‘improvement’, pain, disability, and psychosocial variables over a 6-month period;
  2. to evaluate gender differences for neck pain patients with dizziness in terms of clinically relevant ‘improvement’, pain, disability, and psychosocial variables in a longitudinal study.


Clinical Biomechanics: Mechanical Concepts and Terms

By |January 6, 2013|Chiropractic Care, Clinical Decision-making, Diagnosis, Education, Evaluation & Management, Spinal Manipulation|

Clinical Biomechanics: Mechanical Concepts and Terms

The Chiro.Org Blog

We would all like to thank Dr. Richard C. Schafer, DC, PhD, FICC for his lifetime commitment to the profession. In the future we will continue to add materials from RC’s copyrighted books for your use.

This is Chapter 2 from RC’s best-selling book:

“Clinical Biomechanics:
Musculoskeletal Actions and Reactions”

Second Edition ~ Wiliams & Wilkins

These materials are provided as a service to our profession. There is no charge for individuals to copy and file these materials. However, they cannot be sold or used in any group or commercial venture without written permission from ACAPress.

Chapter 2:   Mechanical Concepts and Terms

All motor activities such as walking, running, jumping, squatting, pushing, pulling, lifting, and throwing are examples of dynamic musculoskeletal mechanics. To better appreciate the sometimes simple and often complex factors involved, this chapter reviews the basic concepts and terms involved in maintaining static equilibrium. Static equilibrium is the starting point for all dynamic activities.

     Energy and Mass

Biomechanics is constantly concerned with a quantity of matter (whatever occupies space, a mass) to which a force has been applied. Such a mass is often the body as a whole, a part of the body such as a limb or segment, or an object such as a load to be lifted or an exercise weight. By the same token, the word “body” refers to any mass; ie, the human body, a body part, or any object.


Energy is the power to work or to act. Body energy is that force which enables it to overcome resistance to motion, to produce a physical effect, and to accomplish work. The body’s kinetic energy, the energy level of the body due to its motion, is reflected solely in its velocity, and its potential energy is reflected solely in its position. Mathematically, kinetic energy is half the mass times the square of the velocity: m/2 X V524. In a closed system where there are no external forces being applied, the law of conservation of mechanical energy states that the sum of kinetic energy and potential energy is equal to a constant for that system.

Potential energy (PE), measured in newton meters or joules, is also stored in the body as a result of tissue displacement or deformation, like a wound spring or a stretched bowstring or tendon. It is expressed mathematically in the equation PE = mass X gravitational acceleration X height of the mass relative to a chosen reference level (eg, the earth’s surface). Thus, a 100-lb upper body balanced on L5 of a 6-ft person has a potential energy of about 300 ft-lb relative the ground.

The Center of Mass

The exact center of an object’s mass is sometimes referred to as the object’s center of gravity. When an object’s mass is evenly distributed throughout, the center of mass is located at the object’s geometric center. In the human body, however, this is infrequently true, and the center of mass is located towards the heavier, often larger, aspect. When considering the body as a whole, the center of mass in the anatomic position, for instance, is constantly shifted during activity when weight is shifted from one area to another during locomotion or when weight is added to or subtracted from the body.

The term weight is not synonymous with the word mass. Body weight refers to the pull of gravity on body mass. Mass is the quotient obtained by dividing the weight of a body by the acceleration due to gravity (32 ft/sec524). Each of these terms has a different unit of measurement. Weight is measured in pounds or kilograms, while mass is measured by a body’s weight divided by the gravitational constant. The potential energy of gravity can be simply visualized as an invisible spring attached between the body’s center of mass and the center of the earth. The pull is always straight downward so that more work is required to move the body upward than horizontally (Fig. 2.1).

     Newton’s Laws of Mechanics