4.5 Review

Chiropractic: A critical evaluation

期刊

JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT
卷 35, 期 5, 页码 544-562

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.07.004

关键词

cerebrovascular accident; clinical trials; cost-effectiveness; evidence-based medicine; side effects

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chiropractic was defined by D.D. Palmer as a science of healing without drugs. About 60, 000 chiropractors currently practice in North America, and, worldwide, billions are spent each year for their services. This article attempts to critically evaluate chiropractic. The specific topics include the history of chiropractic; the internal conflicts within the profession; the concepts of chiropractic, particularly those of subluxation and spinal manipulation,chiropractic practice and research; and the efficacy, safety, and cost of chiropractic. A narrative review of selected articles from the published chiropractic literature was Performed. For the assessment of efficacy, safety, and cost, the evaluation relied on previously published systematic reviews. Chiropractic is rooted in mystical concepts. This led to an internal conflict within the chiropractic profession, which continues today. Currently, there are two types of chiropractors: those religiously adhering to the gospel of its founding fathers and those open to change. The core concepts of chiropractic, subluxation and spinal manipulation, are not based on sound science. Back and neck pain are the domains of chiropractic but many chiropractors treat conditions other than musculoskeletal problems. With the possible exception of back pain, chiropractic spinal manipulation has not been shown to be effective for any medical condition. Manipulation is associated with frequent mild adverse effects and with serious complications of unknown incidence. Its cost-effectiveness has not been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. The concepts of chiropractic are not based on solid science and its therapeutic value has not been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据