Cargando…
Why is the prevailing model of joint manipulation (still) incorrect?
For manipulation, this paper addresses arguably the most fundamental question that can be asked about any therapeutic intervention: what is it? In answering this question, this paper presents the prevailing model of joint manipulation (of Sandoz) and explains why this influential model is fundamenta...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9733235/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36494698 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12998-022-00460-2 |
_version_ | 1784846323336347648 |
---|---|
author | Evans, David W. |
author_facet | Evans, David W. |
author_sort | Evans, David W. |
collection | PubMed |
description | For manipulation, this paper addresses arguably the most fundamental question that can be asked about any therapeutic intervention: what is it? In answering this question, this paper presents the prevailing model of joint manipulation (of Sandoz) and explains why this influential model is fundamentally flawed. The early research on ‘joint cracking’ that led to the development of this model is described in chronological order, alongside how this research was misinterpreted, which gave rise to the model’s flaw. Of concern, the flaw in this model makes worrying predictions that could lead to dangerous clinical decisions. Understandably, these predictions have attracted criticism over the use of manipulation as a therapeutic intervention. A corrected model, first published by Evans and Breen more than 15 years ago, is then presented and explained. Unlike the flawed model, this corrected model makes predictions in line with all available empirical data and additionally provides reassuring answers to critics. Many current definitions of manipulation have inherited the flaw from Sandoz’s model. Hence, a better, empirically derived definition, consistent with the corrected model, is now required. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9733235 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-97332352022-12-10 Why is the prevailing model of joint manipulation (still) incorrect? Evans, David W. Chiropr Man Therap Review For manipulation, this paper addresses arguably the most fundamental question that can be asked about any therapeutic intervention: what is it? In answering this question, this paper presents the prevailing model of joint manipulation (of Sandoz) and explains why this influential model is fundamentally flawed. The early research on ‘joint cracking’ that led to the development of this model is described in chronological order, alongside how this research was misinterpreted, which gave rise to the model’s flaw. Of concern, the flaw in this model makes worrying predictions that could lead to dangerous clinical decisions. Understandably, these predictions have attracted criticism over the use of manipulation as a therapeutic intervention. A corrected model, first published by Evans and Breen more than 15 years ago, is then presented and explained. Unlike the flawed model, this corrected model makes predictions in line with all available empirical data and additionally provides reassuring answers to critics. Many current definitions of manipulation have inherited the flaw from Sandoz’s model. Hence, a better, empirically derived definition, consistent with the corrected model, is now required. BioMed Central 2022-12-09 /pmc/articles/PMC9733235/ /pubmed/36494698 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12998-022-00460-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Review Evans, David W. Why is the prevailing model of joint manipulation (still) incorrect? |
title | Why is the prevailing model of joint manipulation (still) incorrect? |
title_full | Why is the prevailing model of joint manipulation (still) incorrect? |
title_fullStr | Why is the prevailing model of joint manipulation (still) incorrect? |
title_full_unstemmed | Why is the prevailing model of joint manipulation (still) incorrect? |
title_short | Why is the prevailing model of joint manipulation (still) incorrect? |
title_sort | why is the prevailing model of joint manipulation (still) incorrect? |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9733235/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36494698 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12998-022-00460-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT evansdavidw whyistheprevailingmodelofjointmanipulationstillincorrect |