PubMed · 3648566
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
A Hillman. 1987. Chiropractic.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3648566/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
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.
OBJECTIVE: There are fundamental differences between the administration of medications and the application of manual procedures, such as those used by chiropractors. The objective of this study was to gather preliminary information on how to address these differences in the design of a multisite, randomized placebo-controlled trial of chiropractic care for women with chronic pelvic pain (CPP). DESIGN: Pilot study for a multisite, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Three chiropractic research clinics in the midwest United States. SUBJECTS: Thirty-nine (39) women with CPP of at least 6 months' duration, diagnosed by board-certified gynecologists. INTERVENTIONS: The active intervention consisted of the chiropractic technique, lumbar spine flexion-distraction, combined with manual Trigger Point Therapy. The placebo intervention consisted of a sham chiropractic procedure performed with an instrument combined with effleurage (light massage). OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the change in the Pain Disability Index (PDI) from baseline to the end of treatment (6 weeks), assessed by group and site. If the change score was in the same direction at all sites, the results were to be combined to estimate treatment effect size. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were similar to those of patients with CPP in other studies. Recruitment methods, particularly in respect to the eligibility criteria and screening protocols, would require modification in order to recruit an adequate sample for the planned randomized controlled trial. Clinicians followed standardized procedures with apparently minimal deviation, patients in both groups were satisfied with their care and blinding appeared to be successful. PDI change scores were not consistent across sites and so results were not combined and overall treatment effect sizes were not estimated. CONCLUSIONS: The technical and personnel resources required to achieve adequate standardization of procedures at multiple sites may make a placebo-controlled trial unfeasible, given our current lack of knowledge about the active agent in manual chiropractic procedures.
Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has become a popular form of healthcare and the predictions are that, it will increase further. The reasons for this level of popularity are highly diverse, and much of the motivation to turn to CAM pertains to a deeply felt criticism of mainstream medicine - many people (are led to) believe that conventional interventions, including immunisation, are associated with the potential to do more harm than good. Thus, it is hardly surprising that CAM also lends support to the "anti-vaccination movement". In particular, sections of the chiropractors, the (non-medically trained) homoeopaths and naturopaths tend to advise their clients against immunisation. The reasons for this attitude are complex and lie, at least in part in the early philosophies which form the basis of these professions. The negative attitude of some providers of CAM towards immunisation constitutes an important example of indirect risks associated with this form of healthcare. The best way forward, it seems, would be a campaign to clarify the risk-benefit profile of immunisations for both users and providers of CAM.