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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bronfort, Gert, Haas, Mitchell, Moher, David, Bouter, Lex, van Tulder, Maurits, Triano, John, Assendelft, Willem JJ, Evans, Roni, Dagenais, Simon, Rosner, Anthony
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