Cargando…
Review conclusions by Ernst and Canter regarding spinal manipulation refuted
In the April 2006 issue of the Journal of Royal Society of Medicine, Ernst and Canter authored a review of the most recent systematic reviews on the effectiveness of spinal manipulation for any condition. The authors concluded that, except for back pain, spinal manipulation is not an effective inter...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2006
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1563471/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16887028 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-1340-14-14 |
_version_ | 1782129512274722816 |
---|---|
author | Bronfort, Gert Haas, Mitchell Moher, David Bouter, Lex van Tulder, Maurits Triano, John Assendelft, Willem JJ Evans, Roni Dagenais, Simon Rosner, Anthony |
author_facet | Bronfort, Gert Haas, Mitchell Moher, David Bouter, Lex van Tulder, Maurits Triano, John Assendelft, Willem JJ Evans, Roni Dagenais, Simon Rosner, Anthony |
author_sort | Bronfort, Gert |
collection | PubMed |
description | In the April 2006 issue of the Journal of Royal Society of Medicine, Ernst and Canter authored a review of the most recent systematic reviews on the effectiveness of spinal manipulation for any condition. The authors concluded that, except for back pain, spinal manipulation is not an effective intervention for any condition and, because of potential side effects, cannot be recommended for use at all in clinical practice. Based on a critical appraisal of their review, the authors of this commentary seriously challenge the conclusions by Ernst and Canter, who did not adhere to standard systematic review methodology, thus threatening the validity of their conclusions. There was no systematic assessment of the literature pertaining to the hazards of manipulation, including comparison to other therapies. Hence, their claim that the risks of manipulation outweigh the benefits, and thus spinal manipulation cannot be recommended as treatment for any condition, was not supported by the data analyzed. Their conclusions are misleading and not based on evidence that allow discrediting of a large body of professionals using spinal manipulation. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-1563471 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2006 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-15634712006-09-09 Review conclusions by Ernst and Canter regarding spinal manipulation refuted Bronfort, Gert Haas, Mitchell Moher, David Bouter, Lex van Tulder, Maurits Triano, John Assendelft, Willem JJ Evans, Roni Dagenais, Simon Rosner, Anthony Chiropr Osteopat Commentary In the April 2006 issue of the Journal of Royal Society of Medicine, Ernst and Canter authored a review of the most recent systematic reviews on the effectiveness of spinal manipulation for any condition. The authors concluded that, except for back pain, spinal manipulation is not an effective intervention for any condition and, because of potential side effects, cannot be recommended for use at all in clinical practice. Based on a critical appraisal of their review, the authors of this commentary seriously challenge the conclusions by Ernst and Canter, who did not adhere to standard systematic review methodology, thus threatening the validity of their conclusions. There was no systematic assessment of the literature pertaining to the hazards of manipulation, including comparison to other therapies. Hence, their claim that the risks of manipulation outweigh the benefits, and thus spinal manipulation cannot be recommended as treatment for any condition, was not supported by the data analyzed. Their conclusions are misleading and not based on evidence that allow discrediting of a large body of professionals using spinal manipulation. BioMed Central 2006-08-03 /pmc/articles/PMC1563471/ /pubmed/16887028 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-1340-14-14 Text en Copyright © 2006 Bronfort et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Commentary Bronfort, Gert Haas, Mitchell Moher, David Bouter, Lex van Tulder, Maurits Triano, John Assendelft, Willem JJ Evans, Roni Dagenais, Simon Rosner, Anthony Review conclusions by Ernst and Canter regarding spinal manipulation refuted |
title | Review conclusions by Ernst and Canter regarding spinal manipulation refuted |
title_full | Review conclusions by Ernst and Canter regarding spinal manipulation refuted |
title_fullStr | Review conclusions by Ernst and Canter regarding spinal manipulation refuted |
title_full_unstemmed | Review conclusions by Ernst and Canter regarding spinal manipulation refuted |
title_short | Review conclusions by Ernst and Canter regarding spinal manipulation refuted |
title_sort | review conclusions by ernst and canter regarding spinal manipulation refuted |
topic | Commentary |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1563471/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16887028 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-1340-14-14 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bronfortgert reviewconclusionsbyernstandcanterregardingspinalmanipulationrefuted AT haasmitchell reviewconclusionsbyernstandcanterregardingspinalmanipulationrefuted AT moherdavid reviewconclusionsbyernstandcanterregardingspinalmanipulationrefuted AT bouterlex reviewconclusionsbyernstandcanterregardingspinalmanipulationrefuted AT vantuldermaurits reviewconclusionsbyernstandcanterregardingspinalmanipulationrefuted AT trianojohn reviewconclusionsbyernstandcanterregardingspinalmanipulationrefuted AT assendelftwillemjj reviewconclusionsbyernstandcanterregardingspinalmanipulationrefuted AT evansroni reviewconclusionsbyernstandcanterregardingspinalmanipulationrefuted AT dagenaissimon reviewconclusionsbyernstandcanterregardingspinalmanipulationrefuted AT rosneranthony reviewconclusionsbyernstandcanterregardingspinalmanipulationrefuted |