Talk:Chiropractic: Difference between revisions

..."concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disorders of the neuromusculoskeletal system"... This is what the WHO source says.

..."concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the neuro-musculoskeletal system. This is what the current lede says.

I think this is a WP:COPYVIO. QuackGuru (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As previously discussed above the first sentence is a copyvio from WHO. QuackGuru (talk) 04:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could not verify the changes in accordance with V. QuackGuru (talk) 16:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It is my opinion that this article is biased in favour of chiropractic. I find that the article minimises the risks of chiropractic. Here are some examples of what I find to be non-neutral sectiosn:

• Chiropractic curricula in the U.S. have been criticized for failing to meet generally accepted standards of evidence-based medicine. However as the profession evolves there is a greater push for more evidence based and evidence informed clinical application.
• Chiropractic care in general is safe when employed skillfully and appropriately. Manipulation is regarded as relatively safe, but as with all therapeutic interventions, complications can arise, and it has known adverse effects, risks and contraindications.

Also, I find that the article isn't of great quality. Take for instance the following sections:

• Throughout its history, chiropractic has been controversial, battling with mainstream medicine and sustained by pseudoscientific ideas. Despite the general consensus of public health professionals regarding the benefits of vaccination, there are significant disagreements among chiropractors, which has led to negative impacts on public vaccination and acceptance of chiropractic.
• Taken overall, spinal manipulation is not effective for the treatment of any condition.[123] A 2008 critical review found that with the possible exception of back pain, chiropractic manipulation has not been shown to be effective for any medical condition.

As well, why was the description of the Bruce Hyer study removed? (The study can be found at http://www.csicop.org/si/show/skeptical_consumers_look_at_chiropractic_claims/ ).

In general, I think that this page needs a major review and it would probably be a good idea to add some tags to notify other editors and readers of the issues surrounding the page. Thanks! NHCLS (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The changes were reverted because the changes to the text were not supported by the source in safety and the sources were deleted because they were not WP:MEDRS compliant. I made changes to the article where I agreed with you about your concerns. However, I do agree with you about the text in the lede. I think there should be sources in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kshilts has made edits to the lead (such as this one) that are removing fairly important and well-supported information from the lead. Overall, the edits seem to support a particular POV. Despite some pointers to use the talk page in the edit summaries, a warning on their talk page and a message on their talk explicitly directing them here, they have not started a discussion. I am hoping they will use this to discuss their changes before they get blocked. Ravensfire (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was written in the article that: "Throughout its history, chiropractic has been controversial, battling with mainstream medicine and sustained by dated dogmatic philosophical beliefs. Some have suggested certain elements of chiropractic philosophy constitutes pseudoscientific ideas. Despite the general consensus of public health professionals regarding the benefits of vaccination, there are significant disagreements among chiropractors, which has led to negative impacts on public vaccination and acceptance of chiropractic. The American Medical Association boycotted chiropractic until 1987, but in recent decades, chiropractic has developed a strong political base and sustained demand for services. Medical guidelines have been developed for the profession, and it has seen coverage by most health plans in the United States."

Here are few references to international publications though, that quite indisputably state that chiropractic is nowadays acknowledged by the traditional medicine as a special field of treatments, as well as included in the Current Care Guidelines on an International basis:

• World Health Organization WHO (Switzerland). Guidelines on basic training and safety in chiropractic. Geneva; 2005. www.who.org [2]
• Bergman TF, Peterson DH . Chiropractic Technique. Principles and Procedures. 3. edition (US) Elsevier-Mosby. 2011.
• Leboeuf-Yde C, Pedersen EN, Bryner P, Cosman D, Hayek R, Meeker WC, Shaik J, Terrazas O, Tucker J, Walsh M. Self-reported nonmusculoskeletal responses to chiropractic intervention: a multination survey. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2005 Jun;28(5): 294–302. [3]
• Hurwitz EL, Carragee EJ, van der Velde G, Carroll LJ, Nordin M, Guzman J, Peloso PM, Holm LW, Côté P, Hogg-Johnson S, Cassidy JD, Haldeman S; Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders. Treatment of neck pain: noninvasive interventions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008 Feb 15;33(4 Suppl):S123–52. [4]
• Rubinstein SM, Terwee CB, Assendelft WJ, de Boer MR, van Tulder MW.Spinal manipulative therapy for acute low back pain: an update of the cochrane review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Feb 1;38(3):E158–77 [5]
• Rubinstein SM, van Middelkoop M, Assendelft WJJ, de Boer MR, van Tulder MW. Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low-back pain. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD008112. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008112.pub2. [6]

Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could not verify the claim. QuackGuru (talk) 06:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...a notion that brings "criticism" from mainstream health care.

Acceptable as hypothesis, the widespread assertion of the clinical meaningfulness of this notion brings ridicule from the scientific and health care communities and confusion within the chiropractic profession.

The source says "ridicule". Without sources in the lede problems like this are continuing. QuackGuru (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The well sourced text in the lede was deleted. I think the sourced text should be restored not deleted. The current lede is poorly written. QuackGuru (talk) 08:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. The first source I provided[7] says:

There was varying quality of evidence (from very low to moderate) suggesting no difference in effect for SMT when compared with other interventions, with the exception of low quality evidence from one trial demonstrating a significant and moderately clinically relevant short-term effect of SMT on pain relief when compared to inert interventions, as well as low quality evidence demonstrating a significant short-term and moderately clinically relevant effect of SMT on functional status when added to another intervention. In general, side-lying and supine thrust SMT techniques demonstrate a short-term significant difference when compared to non-thrust SMT techniques for the outcomes of pain, functional status, and recovery. ("low quality evidence", pertaining to the GRADE guidelines, which define it as: "Randomized trials begin as high-quality evidence, observational studies as low quality"[8][)

The second source[9] states similar:

"The results of this review demonstrate that SMT appears to be as effective as other common therapies prescribed for chronic low-back pain, such as, exercise therapy, standard medical care or physiotherapy. However, it is less clear how it compares to inert interventions or sham (placebo) treatment because there are only a few studies, typically with a high risk of bias, which investigated these factors. Approximately two-thirds of the studies had a high risk of bias, which means we cannot be completely confident with their results. Furthermore, no serious complications were observed with SMT.

In summary, SMT appears to be no better or worse than other existing therapies for patients with chronic low-back pain."

Therefore, I don't quite understand why you removed those sources. Ps. There is also a wikiarticle on the GRADE guidelines, if you are interested: [[10]] Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the tags but the text still failed WP:V. The following sentence is sourced text that summarises the review: A Cochrane review found that spinal manipulation therapy was no more effective than inert interventions, sham SMT or as an adjunct therapy for acute low back pain.<ref name=Cochrane-2013/> QuackGuru (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]