BCA have finally done a decent thing and released their plethora of evidence. As predicted, Olafsdottir et al. (2001) is omitted from the list of 27 (now 29) papers. This is by far the best quality trial of the effectiveness of chiropractic treatment of colic available. So why was it omitted? Was it:
- The BCA are so incompetent that they were unaware of it?
- The BCA are fully aware of it, but have intentionally ignored it?
While incompetence can not easily be discounted, if they are intentionally ignoring it, that must come close to fulfilling even Judge Eady's surreal definition of "bogus".
It would also apparently fall foul of the GCC code of conduct's definition of evidence based care, which, as quoted in the BCA's plethora, is "clinical practice that incorporates the best
available evidence from research". Giving chiropractic treatment for colic would thus appear to to breach rule A2.3.
Ahh, I don't think you are thinking sufficiently alternatively here. The Olafsdottir et al. paper doesn't show an effect for chiropractic treatment, therefore it is not evidence FOR chiropractic, and so can't possibly be included in the list! The BCA only offered a list of evidence FOR chiropractic, it didn't say it would include evidence AGAINST it.
ReplyDelete