Spinal manipulation, which chiropractors call "spinal adjustment" or "chiropractic adjustment", is the most common treatment used in chiropractic care. More generally,
spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) describes techniques where the hands are used to manipulate, massage, mobilize, adjust, stimulate, apply traction to, or otherwise influence the spine and related tissues. There are several schools of chiropractic adjustive techniques, although most chiropractors mix techniques from several schools. The following adjustive procedures were received by more than 10% of patients of licensed US chiropractors in a 2003 survey: Chiropractic biophysics technique uses inverse functions of rotations during spinal manipulation.
Koren Specific Technique (KST) may use their hands, or they may use an electric device known as an "ArthroStim" for assessment and spinal manipulations. Medicine-assisted manipulation, such as
manipulation under anesthesia, involves sedation or local anesthetic and is done by a team that includes an
anesthesiologist; a 2008
systematic review did not find enough evidence to make recommendations about its use for chronic low back pain. ,
cervical and
thoracic chiropractic spinal manipulation Many other procedures are used by chiropractors for treating the spine, other joints and tissues, and general health issues. The following procedures were received by more than one-third of patients of licensed US chiropractors in a 2003 survey: Diversified technique (full-spine manipulation; mentioned in previous paragraph),
physical fitness/exercise promotion, corrective or therapeutic exercise,
ergonomic/
postural advice,
self-care strategies,
activities of daily living, changing risky/unhealthy behaviors,
nutritional/dietary recommendations,
relaxation/
stress reduction recommendations,
ice pack/cryotherapy, extremity adjusting (also mentioned in previous paragraph), trigger point therapy, and
disease prevention/early
screening advice. A 2010 study describing Belgian chiropractors and their patients found chiropractors in Belgium mostly focus on neuromusculoskeletal complaints in adult patients, with emphasis on the spine. A 2009 study assessing chiropractic students giving or receiving spinal manipulations while attending a United States chiropractic college found Diversified, Gonstead, and upper cervical manipulations are frequently used methods.
Practice guidelines Reviews of research studies within the chiropractic community have been used to generate practice guidelines outlining standards that specify which chiropractic treatments are legitimate (i.e. supported by evidence) and conceivably reimbursable under
managed care health payment systems. Chiropractic remains at a crossroads, and that in order to progress it would need to embrace science; the promotion by some for it to be a cure-all was both "misguided and irrational". A 2007 survey of
Alberta chiropractors found that they do not consistently apply research in practice, which may have resulted from a lack of research education and skills. Specific guidelines concerning the treatment of nonspecific (i.e., unknown cause) low back pain are inconsistent between countries.
Effectiveness Numerous controlled clinical studies of treatments used by chiropractors have been conducted, with varied results. Generally, the research carried out into the effectiveness of chiropractic has been of poor quality. Research published by chiropractors is distinctly biased: reviews of SM for back pain tended to find positive conclusions when authored by chiropractors, while reviews by mainstream authors did not. Chiropractic care benefits from the
placebo response, but it is difficult to construct a trustworthy placebo for clinical trials of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). The efficacy of maintenance care in chiropractic is unknown. It has only low-quality and inconsistent evidence of benefit, with no clear superiority over standard medical care. There is moderate quality evidence to support the use of SM for the treatment of acute
lumbar radiculopathy and acute lumbar
disc herniation with associated radiculopathy. There is low or very low evidence supporting SM for chronic lumbar spine-related extremity symptoms and cervical spine-related extremity symptoms of any duration and no evidence exists for the treatment of thoracic radiculopathy. A 2013 systematic review found that the data suggests that there are minimal short- and long-term treatment differences when comparing manipulation or mobilization of the cervical spine to physical therapy or exercise for neck pain improvement. A 2013 systematic review found that although there is insufficient evidence that thoracic SM is more effective than other treatments, it is a suitable intervention to treat some patients with non-specific neck pain. A 2011 systematic review found that thoracic SM may offer short-term improvement for the treatment of acute or subacute mechanical neck pain; although the body of literature is still weak. A 2010 Cochrane review found low quality evidence that suggests cervical manipulation may offer better short-term pain relief than a control for neck pain, and moderate evidence that cervical manipulation and mobilization produced similar effects on pain, function and patient satisfaction. A 2010 systematic review found low level evidence that suggests chiropractic care improves cervical range of motion and pain in the management of whiplash. •
Headache. There is no good evidence chiropractic helps with
migraine. There is silver level evidence that manual therapy is more effective than exercise for the treatment of hip osteoarthritis, however this evidence could be considered to be inconclusive. There is a small amount of research into the efficacy of chiropractic treatment for
upper limbs, limited to low level evidence supporting chiropractic management of
shoulder pain and limited or fair evidence supporting chiropractic management of leg conditions. •
Other. A 2012 systematic review found insufficient low bias evidence to support the use of spinal manipulation as a therapy for the treatment of hypertension. A 2011 systematic review found moderate evidence to support the use of manual therapy for cervicogenic dizziness. There is very weak evidence for chiropractic care for adult
scoliosis (curved or rotated spine) and no scientific data for
idiopathic adolescent scoliosis. A 2007 systematic review found that few studies of chiropractic care for nonmusculoskeletal conditions are available, and they are typically not of high quality; it also found that the entire clinical encounter of chiropractic care (as opposed to just SM) provides benefit to patients with cervicogenic dizziness, and that the evidence from reviews is negative, or too weak to draw conclusions, for a wide variety of other nonmusculoskeletal conditions, including
ADHD/
learning disabilities,
dizziness,
high blood pressure, and
vision conditions. Other reviews have found no evidence of significant benefit for
asthma,
baby colic,
bedwetting,
carpal tunnel syndrome,
fibromyalgia,
gastrointestinal disorders, kinetic imbalance due to
suboccipital strain (KISS) in infants,
menstrual cramps,
insomnia,
postmenopausal symptoms, As there is no evidence of effectiveness or safety for cervical manipulation for baby colic, it is not endorsed.
Safety The
World Health Organization found chiropractic care in general is safe when employed skillfully and appropriately. Indirect risks of chiropractic involve delayed or missed diagnoses through consulting a chiropractor. They have been estimated to occur in 33% to 61% of patients, and frequently occur within an hour of treatment and disappear within 24 to 48 hours; adverse reactions appear to be more common following manipulation than mobilization. The most frequently stated adverse effects are mild headache, soreness, and briefly elevated pain fatigue. Chiropractic is correlated with a very high
incidence of minor adverse effects. Estimates vary widely for the incidence of these complications, A 2016 systematic review concludes that the level of reporting is unsuitable and unacceptable. Reports of serious adverse events have occurred, resulting from spinal manipulation therapy of the lumbopelvic region.
X-rays recommends avoiding chiropractors who use full-body
x-ray radiography The use of X-ray imaging in the case of vertebral subluxation exposes patients to harmful
ionizing radiation for no evidentially supported reason. Chiropractors sometimes employ diagnostic imaging techniques such as X-rays and
CT scans that rely on
ionizing radiation. which increases cancer risk in proportion to the amount of radiation received. Research suggests that radiology instruction given at chiropractic schools worldwide seem to be evidence-based. QuackWatch cautions against seeing chiropractors who do full-body x-rays. Weak to moderately strong evidence supports causation (as opposed to statistical association) between
cervical manipulative therapy (CMT) and VAS. There is insufficient evidence to support a strong association or no association between cervical manipulation and stroke. While the biomechanical evidence is not sufficient to support the statement that CMT causes cervical artery dissection (CD), clinical reports suggest that mechanical forces have a part in a substantial number of CDs and the majority of population controlled studies found an association between CMT and VAS in young people. There is controversy regarding the degree of risk of stroke from cervical manipulation. There is very low evidence supporting a small association between internal
carotid artery dissection and chiropractic neck manipulation. The incidence of internal carotid artery dissection following cervical spine manipulation is unknown. The literature infrequently reports helpful data to better understand the association between cervical manipulative therapy, cervical artery dissection and stroke. The limited evidence is inconclusive that chiropractic spinal manipulation therapy is not a cause of
intracranial hypotension. Cervical intradural
disc herniation is very rare following spinal manipulation therapy. A 2012 systematic review concluded that no accurate assessment of risk-benefit exists for cervical manipulation. A 1999 review of 177 previously reported cases published between 1925 and 1997 in which injuries were attributed to manipulation of the cervical spine (MCS) concluded that "The literature does not demonstrate that the benefits of MCS outweigh the risks." The professions associated with each injury were assessed. Physical therapists (PT) were involved in less than 2% of all cases, with no deaths caused by PTs. Chiropractors were involved in a little more than 60% of all cases, including 32 deaths. A 2009 review evaluating maintenance chiropractic care found that spinal manipulation is associated with considerable harm and no compelling evidence exists to indicate that it adequately prevents symptoms or diseases, thus the risk-benefit is not evidently favorable.
Cost-effectiveness A 2012 systematic review suggested that the use of spine manipulation in clinical practice is a
cost-effective treatment when used alone or in combination with other treatment approaches. A 2011 systematic review found evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of using spinal manipulation for the treatment of sub-acute or chronic low back pain; the results for acute low back pain were insufficient. A 2006 systematic cost-effectiveness review found that the reported cost-effectiveness of spinal manipulation in the United Kingdom compared favorably with other treatments for back pain, but that reports were based on data from clinical trials without placebo controls and that the specific cost-effectiveness of the treatment (as opposed to non-specific effects) remains uncertain. A 2005 American systematic review of economic evaluations of conservative treatments for low back pain found that significant quality problems in available studies meant that definite conclusions could not be drawn about the most cost-effective intervention. The cost-effectiveness of maintenance chiropractic care is unknown. Analysis of a clinical and cost utilization data from the years 2003 to 2005 by an integrative medicine independent physician association (IPA) which looked the chiropractic services utilization found that the clinical and cost utilization of chiropractic services based on 70,274 member-months over a 7-year period decreased patient costs associate with the following use of services by 60% for in-hospital admissions, 59% for hospital days, 62% for outpatient surgeries and procedures, and 85% for pharmaceutical costs when compared with conventional medicine (visit to a medical doctor primary care provider) IPA performance for the same health maintenance organization product in the same geography and time frame. == Education, licensing, and regulation ==