12. Thiel et al. (2007) Safety of chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine: a prospective national survey. Spine 2007 Oct; 32(21): 2375-8
13. Cassidy et al. (2008) Risk of vertebro-basilar stroke and chiropractic care: results of a population based case control and case crossover study. Spine 2008 Feb 15; 33 (4 suppl): S176-83
Both papers were also cited by Richard Brown (vice-president of the BCA) in his piece in the New Scientist.
Not wanting to pay to read the full articles, I only have access to the abstracts.
Theil et al. (2007) motivate their study by noting that the risk of a serious adverse event following chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine is largely unknown, with estimates between 1 in 200,000 and 1 in several million cervical spine manipulations. They looked at the outcome of ~60,000 cervical spine manipulation on ~20,000 patients. No serious adverse events were reported, meaning that at worst, the risk is ~6 per 100,000 manipulation. None of the previous studies had sugested a risk anywhere near this high. This study does not assure us that chiropractic treatment is safe, merely that the risk of a serious adverse event is not much worse than we though. The risk of minor adverse events is rather high.
Cassidy et al. (2008) examine the risk of a rare type of stroke - a vertebrobasilar artery (VBA) stroke - associated with chiropractic visits and primary care physician visits. They paper finds an enhanced risk of a VBA stroke after a vist to either type of practitioner, and attribute this to patients suffering from neck pains or head aches, both known precursors of a VBA stroke, visiting the practitioner. Its not clear from the abstract if this can fully account for the enhanced risk of both types of practitioner. While this study does not demonstrate a greatly enhanced risk from chiropractic treatment, it does so only with regard to one particular adverse event.
No comments:
Post a Comment