JRSM >
Volume 99, Number 6 >
Pp. 277
Letters |
1 Professor of Musculoskeletal Health Care, Institute for Musculoskeletal
Research and Clinical Implementation, Anglo-European College of Chiropractic,
13-15 Parkwood Road, Bournemouth BH5 2DF
2 Head of Research, British School of Osteopathy, Borough High Street,
London
3 Reader in Psychology, Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of
London, Egham, Surrey
4 Senior Lecturer (Pain Management), Primary Care Sciences Research Centre,
Keele University, Keele
5 Professor of General Practice, Centre of Health Sciences, Institute of Health
Sciences Education, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary, University
of London, UK
Although Ernst and Canter's review (April 2006 JRSM1) attempts to reduce the confusion over manipulation it only adds to it. First, no justification is offered for aggregating a heterogeneous range of health complaints. Secondly, there is no evidence of systematic quality appraisal of these disparate data, except by comments on professional backgrounds or by self-assessing their own work as `rigorous and systematic'. Thirdly, the exclusion criteria neglect the very studies which test the effectiveness of manipulation as used in practice, i.e. as part of a package of care.
Manipulation is a biomedical intervention, used mainly for common musculoskeletal disorders by a wide range of healthcare practitioners, both within the banner of conventional medicine and outside it. Taken alone, it is like any other intervention for these conditions; it will work in some cases but not others. It is increasingly clear that no biomedical approach in isolation is adequate for common musculoskeletal conditions. The usefulness of manipulation is that it can be used within a package of care that provides advice about re-activation, reassurance about resuming activity, pain control, and the recognition and minimization of psychosocial risks for chronicity. The trials excluded by Ernst and Canters review (e.g., the UK BEAM trial)2,3 show that manipulation is effective and cost-effective within such a package of care. Current guidelines also recognize this.
Ernst has a record of publications that take a different approach4; and there is enough evidence about manipulation in the back pain area that further explanatory trials are probably no longer needed. Rather, as with many interventions including exercise, further research is needed to help clarify where it is best used in a package of care and for which patient subgroups; so that practitioners who have the training to use it can do so more selectively within a holistic approach.
REFERENCES
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
Related articles in JRSM:
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  I. Johnson Adverse effects of spinal manipulation J R Soc Med, October 1, 2007; 100(10): 444 - 445. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. Ernst Shooting the Messenger Complementary Health Practice Review, April 1, 2006; 11(2): 71 - 74. [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
