RSM logo
JRSM

Home Current issue Browse archive Alerts About the journal Feedback
 
J R Soc Med 2006;99:278
doi:10.1258/jrsm.99.6.278
© 2006 Royal Society of Medicine

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Send a Quick Comment
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Quick Comments are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lewis, B J
Right arrow Articles by Carruthers, G
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
J R Soc Med 2006;99:278
© 2006 The Royal Society of Medicine

Letters

Systematic review of spinal manipulation

A biased report

B J Lewis1   G Carruthers2

1 President, British Chiropractic Association, Reading, Berkshire RG1 1QB, UK
2 Immediate Past President, British Chiropractic Association, Reading, Berkshire RG1 1QB, UK

Correspondence to: B J Lewis E-mail: bcapresident{at}ntlworld.com

As Fellows of The Royal Society of Medicine, and also currently the President and Immediate Past President of the British Chiropractic Association, we wish to comment on the paper by Ernst and Canter (April 2006, JRSM1).

The authors clearly demonstrate bias in the very carefully selected studies included in their review. It appears to us that these researchers wished to examine a number of rather obscure areas of investigation (infantile colic, asthma, dysmenorrhoea, etc.) that cannot fairly reflect the efficacy or efficiency of manipulation—and there are many good quality primary research papers available for critique that deal adequately with the major focus of mainstream manipulation.2,3 It would, of course, have been a more accurate and impartial review if they had concentrated on those elements where the outcomes are well documented—namely, low back pain syndromes.4,5

Indeed, this recent review included four `reviews of reviews' by the main author; this in itself would surely perpetuate any author bias, whether intentional or not. In fact, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York concluded that it was difficult to assess the methodological robustness of the reviews utilized or the quality or the results of the primary studies. It is obvious that the CRD will not be alone in their conclusion. However, our own profession will continue to strive for the highest standards in research, education and practice, where patients' best interests will always remain paramount.

At the end of the day, no matter how robust the methodology of a critical review, the authors are inclined to their own bias: to conduct a review of reviews of one's own opinions, adds little to a meaningful literature base.

REFERENCES

  1. Ernst E, Canter P H. A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation. J R Soc Med2006; 99:192 -6[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  2. United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomised trial: effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care. BMJ2004; 329:1377 [Epub 2004 Nov 19][Abstract/Free Full Text]

  3. United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomised trial: cost effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care. BMJ2004; 329:1381 [Epub 2004 Nov 19][Abstract/Free Full Text]

  4. Meade TW, Dyer S, Browne W, Townsend J, Frank A O. Low back pain of mechanical origin: randomised comparison of chiropractic and hospital outpatient treatment. BMJ1990; 300:1431 -7[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  5. Meade TW, Dyer S, Browne W, Frank A O. Randomised comparison of chiropractic and hospital outpatient management for low back pain: results from extended follow up. BMJ1995; 311:349 -51[Abstract/Free Full Text]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
BMJHome page
E. Ernst
Chiropractic for paediatric conditions: substantial evidence?
BMJ, July 9, 2009; 339(jul08_4): b2766 - b2766.
[Full Text]


Home page
JRSMHome page
I. Johnson
Adverse effects of spinal manipulation
J R Soc Med, October 1, 2007; 100(10): 444 - 445.
[Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Send a Quick Comment
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Quick Comments are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lewis, B J
Right arrow Articles by Carruthers, G
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

MRI of the Whole Body