2010
DOI: 10.1111/j.2042-7166.2010.01034.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Serious adverse events after spinal manipulation: a systematic review of the Korean literature

Abstract: The aim of this systematic review was to summarise adverse effects after spinal manipulation reported in the South Korean literature. The Korean literature was searched for relevant articles. Twelve articles met the inclusion criteria. They reported a total of 18 cases. In most instances, the patient made a full recovery. The implicated treatment was frequently a spinal manipulation technique that is an integral part of traditional Korean medicine. It is concluded that adverse effects after spinal manipulation… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

4
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Other experts are not convinced, 5 and point to severe complications after neck manipulations, including close to 50 documented deaths. 6,7 How can we tell who is correct? Clearly we need evidence, not opinion.…”
Section: Edzard Ernstmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Other experts are not convinced, 5 and point to severe complications after neck manipulations, including close to 50 documented deaths. 6,7 How can we tell who is correct? Clearly we need evidence, not opinion.…”
Section: Edzard Ernstmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most chiropractors also insist that chiropractic treatments are entirely safe. Other experts are not convinced, 5 and point to severe complications after neck manipulations, including close to 50 documented deaths 6,7 . How can we tell who is correct?…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, it has been suggested that subluxations lack biological plausibility [3,4]. Safety and cost‐effectiveness of SM have also been questioned [5–8]. Despite unproven safety, debatable effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness, SM is still widely used for a wide range of pain related conditions (among others).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, SM has repeatedly been criticized for not being biologically plausible 5,6 . The effectiveness, safety, and cost‐effectiveness of SM have also been questioned 7‐10 . Thus, it seems crucial to be certain about its benefits for patients suffering from CGH.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%