Chiropractic spinal manipulation for whiplash injury? A systematic review of controlled clinical trials

Ernst, Edzard

doi:10.1111/j.2042-7166.2009.tb01939.x

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…2 Overt contradictions often emerge, as is the case for the conclusions of SRs of headache, 3,4 fibromyalgia 5,6 and whiplash injury. 7,8 The more positive SRs are frequently authored by chiropractors, 3,6,7 while the more negative SRs tend to be published by independent experts. 4,5,8 Most chiropractors continue to make therapeutic claims that are not supported by good evidence 9,10 and tend to argue that those SRs that fail to generate positive conclusions are biased.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7,8 The more positive SRs are frequently authored by chiropractors, 3,6,7 while the more negative SRs tend to be published by independent experts. 4,5,8 Most chiropractors continue to make therapeutic claims that are not supported by good evidence 9,10 and tend to argue that those SRs that fail to generate positive conclusions are biased. It is therefore relevant to ask what the least biased SRs of chiropractic show.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many SRs of chiropractic have emerged but, confusingly, their evidence is far from uniform, even when dealing with the same clinical condition . Overt contradictions often emerge, as is the case for the conclusions of SRs of headache, fibromyalgia and whiplash injury . The more positive SRs are frequently authored by chiropractors, while the more negative SRs tend to be published by independent experts …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Chiropractic spinal manipulation: what does the ‘best’ evidence show?

Ernst

2012

Focus on Alt & Comp Therapy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The evidence of effectiveness of chiropractic is controversial. Objectives To summarise all Cochrane reviews of chiropractic spinal manipulation. Methods The Cochrane database was searched for all Cochrane reviews of chiropractic manipulation. Cochrane reviews with the terms ‘chiropractic’, ‘manipulation’ or ‘manual therapy’ in the title, abstract or keywords were considered. Protocols of reviews were excluded, as were studies that did not focus specifically on chiropractic spinal manipulation. Data extraction was performed by the author according to predefined criteria. Results Five Cochrane reviews were eligible for inclusion. Due to clinical and statistical heterogeneity, a meta‐analysis was not possible and the findings of the reviews were discussed narratively. The five reviews related to the following conditions: low back pain, asthma, dysmenorrhoea and neck pain. Each review included between three and 39 primary studies. Cautiously positive conclusions emerged for low back pain and neck pain. For the two non‐spinal conditions, the conclusions were negative. Conclusions Cochrane reviews, generally considered to be the most reliable evidence, provide limited evidence that chiropractic may be effective for low back and neck pain, but failed to support the use of chiropractic for non‐spinal conditions.

show abstract