This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Objective: The purpose of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of conservative nondrug, nonsurgical interventions, either alone or in combination, for conditions of the shoulder. Methods: The review was conducted from March 2016 to November 2016 in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and was registered with PROSPERO. Eligibility criteria included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, or meta-analyses studying adult patients with a shoulder diagnosis. Interventions qualified if they did not involve prescription medication or surgical procedures, although these could be used in the comparison group or groups. At least 2 independent reviewers assessed the quality of each study using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network checklists. Shoulder conditions addressed were shoulder impingement syndrome (SIS), rotator cuff-associated disorders (RCs), adhesive capsulitis (AC), and nonspecific shoulder pain. Results: Twenty-five systematic reviews and 44 RCTs met inclusion criteria. Low-to moderate-quality evidence supported the use of manual therapies for all 4 shoulder conditions. Exercise, particularly combined with physical therapy protocols, was beneficial for SIS and AC. For SIS, moderate evidence supported several passive modalities. For RC, physical therapy protocols were found beneficial but not superior to surgery in the long term. Moderate evidence supported extracorporeal shockwave therapy for calcific tendinitis RC. Low-level laser was the only modality for which there was moderate evidence supporting its use for all 4 conditions. Conclusion: The findings of this literature review may help inform practitioners who use conservative methods (eg, doctors of chiropractic, physical therapists, and other manual therapists) regarding the levels of evidence for modalities used for common shoulder conditions. (J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2017;40:293-319)

Background: The literature pertaining to chiropractic students' opinions with respect to the desired future status of the chiropractic physician is limited and is an appropriate topic worthy of study. A previous pilot study was performed at a single chiropractic college. This current study is an expansion of this pilot project to collect data from chiropractic students enrolled in colleges throughout North America. Objective: The purpose of this study is to investigate North American chiropractic students' opinions concerning professional identity, role and future. Methods: A 23-item cross-sectional electronic questionnaire was developed. A total of 7,455 chiropractic students from 12 North American English-speaking chiropractic colleges were invited to complete the survey. Survey items encompassed demographics, evidence-based practice, chiropractic identity and setting, and scope of practice. Data were collected and descriptive statistical analysis was performed.

There is an increasing awareness, interest and acceptance of the biopsychosocial (BPS) model by all health care professionals involved with patient care. The areas of spine care and pain medicine are no exception, and in fact, these areas of health care are a major centerpiece of the movement from the traditional biomedical model to a BPS model of patient assessment and delivery of care. The chiropractic approach to health care has a history that is grounded in key aspects of the BPS model. The profession has inherently implemented certain features of the BPS model throughout its history, perhaps without a full understanding or realization. The purpose of this paper is to present an overview of the BPS model, its relationship with spine care and pain management, and to discuss the BPS model, particularly psychosocial aspects, in the context of its historical relationship with chiropractic. We will also provide recommendations for the chiropractic profession as it relates to successful adoption of a full integration of the BPS model.

Background The purpose was to identify, summarize, and rate scholarly literature that describes manipulative and manual therapy following lumbar surgery. Methods The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and was registered with PROSPERO. PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ICL, CINAHL, and PEDro were searched through July 2019. Articles were screened independently by at least two reviewers for inclusion. Articles included described the practice, utilization, and/or clinical decision making to post surgical intervention with manipulative and/or manual therapies. Data extraction consisted of principal findings, pain and function/disability, patient satisfaction, opioid/medication consumption, and adverse events. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network critical appraisal checklists were utilized to assess study quality. Results Literature search yielded 1916 articles, 348 duplicates were removed, 109 full-text articles were screened and 50 citations met inclusion criteria. There were 37 case reports/case series, 3 randomized controlled trials, 3 pilot studies, 5 systematic/scoping/narrative reviews, and 2 commentaries. Conclusion The findings of this review may help inform practitioners who utilize manipulative and/or manual therapies regarding levels of evidence for patients with prior lumbar surgery. Following lumbar surgery, the evidence indicated inpatient neural mobilization does not improve outcomes. There is inconclusive evidence to recommend for or against most manual therapies after most surgical interventions.