PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

William C Meeker

Publications and source records attributed to William C Meeker.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Self-reported nonmusculoskeletal responses to chiropractic intervention: a multination survey.

OBJECTIVE: To replicate a previous study of nonmusculoskeletal responses to chiropractic intervention and to establish whether such responses are influenced by the country of study, chiropractors' attitudes, and information to patients, patients' demographic profiles, and treatment regimens. METHODS: Information obtained through questionnaires by chiropractors and patients on return visit within 2 weeks of previous treatment from chiropractic practices in Canada, United States, Mexico, Hong-Kong, Japan, Australia, and South Africa. In all, 385 chiropractors collected valid data on 5607 patients. Spinal manipulation with or without additional therapy was the intervention provided by chiropractors. Outcome measures included self-reported improved nonmusculoskeletal reactions (allergy, asthma, breathing, circulation, digestion, hearing, heart function, ringing in the ears, sinus problems, urination, and others). RESULTS: The results from the previous study were largely reproduced. Positive reactions were reported by 2% to 10% of all patients and by 3% to 27% of those who reported to have such problems. Most common were improved breathing (27%), digestion (26%), and circulation (21%). Some variables were identified that somewhat influenced the outcome: patients informed that such reactions may occur (odds ratio [OR] 1.5), treatment to the upper cervical spine (OR 1.4), treatment to lower thoracic spine (OR 1.3), and female sex (OR 1.3). However, these had a very small "explanatory" value (pseudo R2 3%). CONCLUSION: A minority of patients with self-reported nonmusculoskeletal symptoms report definite improvement after chiropractic care, and very few report definite worsening. Future studies should use stringent criteria to investigate a possible treatment effect and concentrate on specific diagnostic subgroups such as digestive problems and tinnitus.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Chiropractic: a profession at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine.

Chiropractic is a large and well-established health care profession in the United States. In this overview, we briefly examine the development of chiropractic from humble and contentious beginnings to its current state at the crossroads of alternative and mainstream medicine. Chiropractic has taken on many of the attributes of an established profession, improving its educational and licensing systems and substantially increasing its market share in the past two decades. The public increasingly uses chiropractic largely for spinal pain syndromes and appears to be highly satisfied with the results. Of all the so-called alternative professions, chiropractic has made the largest inroads into private and public health care financing systems and is increasingly viewed as an effective specialty by many in the medical profession. Much of the positive evolution of chiropractic can be ascribed to a quarter century-long research effort focused on the core chiropractic procedure of spinal manipulation. This effort has helped bring spinal manipulation out of the investigational category to become one of the most studied forms of conservative treatment for spinal pain. Chiropractic theory is still controversial, but recent expansion in federal support of chiropractic research bodes well for further scientific development. The medical establishment has not yet fully accepted chiropractic as a mainstream form of care. The next decade should determine whether chiropractic maintains the trappings of an alternative health care profession or becomes fully integrated into all health care systems.

Chiropractic↗
PubMed2002

Practice-based randomized controlled-comparison clinical trial of chiropractic adjustments and brief massage treatment at sites of subluxation in subjects with essential hypertension: pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of conducting a randomized clinical trial in the private practice setting examining short- and long-term effects of chiropractic adjustments for subjects with essential hypertension compared with a brief soft tissue massage, as well as a nontreatment control group. DESIGN: Randomized controlled-comparison trial with 3 parallel groups. SETTING: Private practice outpatient chiropractic clinic. PATIENTS: Twenty-three subjects, aged 24 to 50 years with systolic or diastolic essential hypertension. INTERVENTIONS: Two months of full-spine chiropractic care (ie, Gonstead) consisting primarily of specific-contact, short-lever-arm adjustments delivered at motion segments exhibiting signs of subluxation. The massage group had a brief effleurage procedure delivered at localized regions of the spine believed to be exhibiting signs of subluxation. The nontreatment control group rested alone for a period of approximately 5 minutes in an adjustment room. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost per enrolled subject, as well as systolic and diastolic blood pressure (BP) measured with a random-0 sphygmomanometer and patient reported health status (SF-36). Pilot study outcome measures also included an assessment of cooperation of subjects to randomization procedures and drop-out rates, recruitment effectiveness, analysis of temporal stability of BPs at the beginning of care, and the effects of inclusion/exclusion criteria on the subject pool. RESULTS: Thirty subjects enrolled, yielding a cost of $161 per enrolled subject. One subject was later determined to be ineligible, and 6 others dropped out. In both the chiropractic and massage therapy groups, all subjects were classified as either overweight or obese; in the control group there were only 2 classified as such. SF-36 profiles for the groups were similar to that of a normal population. The mean change in diastolic BP was -4 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -8.6, 0.5) in the chiropractic care group, 0.5 (95% CI: -3.5, 4.5) in the brief massage treatment group, and -4.9 (95% CI: -9.7, -0.1) in the no treatment control group. At the end of the study period, this change was -6.3 (95% CI: 13.1, 0.4), -1.0 (95% CI: -7.5, 15.6), -7.2 (95% CI: -13.3, -1.1) in the 3 study groups. The mean improvements in the chiropractic care and no treatment control groups remained consistent over the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study elucidated several procedural issues that should be addressed before undertaking a full-scale clinical trial on the effects of chiropractic adjustments in patients with essential hypertension. A multidisciplinary approach to recruitment may need to be used in any future efforts because of the limited subject pool of patients who have hypertensive disease but are not taking medications for its control. Measures need to be used to assure comparable groups regarding prognostic variables such as weight. Studies such as these demonstrate the feasibility of conducting a full-scale 3-group randomized clinical trial in the private practice setting.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Commentary: the National Workshop to Develop the Chiropractic Research Agenda: 10 years on, a new set of white papers.

This commentary reports on the advances that have occurred over the 10-year period since the first National Workshop to Develop the Chiropractic Research Agenda was held and introduces the second set of white papers that were produced as a result of the 10th annual Research Agenda Conference. Four working groups were convened to update the original 5 white papers that represented the most significant results from the first workshop in 1996. Each group was to review the first report, examine the action steps and recommendations that were published in each report to see how much had been completed in the past decade, and develop new action steps and recommendations for the future. Four new articles were developed, each updating and adding significant amounts of new research to the original versions. New action steps and recommendations will help move the profession forward into the future. Chiropractic scientists have worked diligently over the past decade to address the recommendations noted in the first set of white papers. Despite significant advances in knowledge and scientific capacity, the chiropractic profession is still confronted with a large number of research challenges.

Chiropractic↗