Objective:

Scientific literature applicable to chiropractic practice proliferates in quantity, quality, and source. Chiropractic is a worldwide profession and varies in scope between states or provinces and from country to country. It is logical to consider that the focus and emphasis of chiropractic education varies between programs as well. This original research study endeavored to determine “essential literature” recommended by chiropractic faculty. The purpose of this article is (1) to share our results and (2) to promote discussion and explore means for future collaboration of chiropractic faculty through a worldwide platform.

Methods:

A 2-phase recruitment occurred initially at the institutional level and subsequently at the faculty level. A Web-based survey used qualitative data collection methods to gather bibliographic citations. Descriptive statistics were calculated for demographics, and citation responses were ranked per number of recommendations, grouped into categories, and tabulated per journal source and publication date.

Results:

Forty-one chiropractic programs were contacted, resulting in 30 participating chiropractic programs (16 US and 14 international). Forty-five faculty members completed the entire survey, submitting 126 peer-reviewed publications and 25 additional citations. Readings emphasized clinical management of spine pain, the science of spinal manipulation, effectiveness of manual therapies, teaching of chiropractic techniques, outcomes assessments, and professional issues.

Conclusion:

A systematic approach to surveying educators in international chiropractic institutions was accomplished. The results of the survey provide a list of essential literature for the chiropractic profession. We recommend establishing a chiropractic faculty registry for improved communication and collaboration.

The proliferation of the scientific literature poses a challenge to the clinician and educator who desires to be conversant in the research status of a profession. Our study aimed to develop a mechanism to identify and disseminate literature “essential” to the chiropractic profession.1  Available research continues to grow at an astounding pace.2  Literature affecting the practice of chiropractic is found in a wider variety of resources as research continues to evolve, as recently demonstrated in the American College of Physicians recent clinical guideline for acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain.3  The quality of research available also continues to improve through the editorial use of transparency instruments available through the EQUATOR Network, such as CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, CARE, STARD, and AGREE,4  and quality database resources, such as Cochrane Collaboration5  and ClinicalTrials.gov.6 

Chiropractic is a worldwide profession. In the United States, many chiropractic programs are private educational institutions and focused predominantly if not solely on the education of chiropractors and chiropractic staff. Internationally, chiropractic programs may exist independently or as part of a larger university system. Chiropractic practice varies in scope between states or provinces and from country to country. It is logical to consider that the focus and emphasis of chiropractic education, philosophy, and research varies between programs as well.

Our current students are the future leaders of our profession; we strive to know how they are molded. What we do not know, however, is whether how or when quality literature disperses through our educational system. Consequently, we wondered, what literature do chiropractic faculty deem “essential” for every chiropractor of which to be aware? The purpose of this study was to survey chiropractic faculty worldwide to determine what literature these faculty deem essential reading for chiropractors and chiropractic students. We share these results not only as a reference of teaching faculty “essential literature” but also to promote discussion and find ways for future collaboration of chiropractic faculty through a worldwide platform.

We conducted an online, descriptive survey to understand what chiropractic program faculty consider to be essential reading for the chiropractic profession. The human protections administrator for Palmer College of Chiropractic determined that this study was exempt per 45 CFR 46, IRB Assurance # X2014-10-17-M. The survey was conducted from March through May 2015.

Recruitment

Participant recruitment occurred on 2 levels: chiropractic educational institutions and individual faculty members (Fig. 1). We first obtained a list of international and US (n = 41) chiropractic programs and their contact information from the World Federation of Chiropractic (WFC) (http://www.wfc.org). The detailed list included accreditation agency, country, school, department (if applicable), physical address, phone, fax, and general e-mail address, as well as a contact name with their professional designation, job title, and phone number, fax, and e-mail address. We e-mailed the designated representative from each chiropractic program requesting a procedure to acquire e-mail addresses for all faculty members in their program; 21 programs replied to this e-mail request. Personalized follow-up by phone call was necessary to determine appropriate channels for other institutions (n = 4). Several lists (n = 5) were obtained via hand retrieval of faculty listings from a program website. Human resources departments were also used as a source for obtaining e-mail contact information. In total, 30 of 41 chiropractic institutions participated in this study, with 11 chiropractic educational institutions (1 US, 10 international) not responding to requests for information. In addition to direct and indirect recruitment of chiropractic faculty, we also introduced the survey to prospective respondents via verbal announcements and handouts at the 2015 Association of Chiropractic Colleges Research Agenda Conference.

Figure 1.

Participant recruitment from chiropractic educational institutions and individual faculty members.

Figure 1.

Participant recruitment from chiropractic educational institutions and individual faculty members.

Survey Development and Implementation

We developed a Web-based survey in ASP.NET v4.0 in C# and Structured Query Language (SQL) using Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA). All data were stored on an internal Microsoft SQL Server 2014. The survey was pretested among chiropractic faculty at our home institution for clarity, ease of use, and content validity.

The survey was launched in March 2015. Recipients received a survey link, pass code, and cover letter with a short explanation regarding the purpose and methods of the study via e-mail. Recipients received an e-mail and link either directly from our Web page/server (direct recipients) or from an individual designated from the program responsible for survey dissemination (indirect recipients). Direct recipients received up to 4 automated reminder messages, depending on their response status within the software. Institutional contacts for indirect recipients received up to 3 prompts to disseminate reminders to faculty.

The survey used qualitative data collection methods. Respondents listed the author, title, journal, and year of an article the respondent considered essential reading for chiropractors and chiropractic students and included a short statement indicating why the recommended article was important. Demographic data collected included respondents' age, gender, hours per week reading professional literature, years of teaching experience, chiropractic program affiliation, primary assignment (administration, classroom, clinical, research, or other), full-time or part-time status, whether a chiropractor or not (if yes, chiropractic program of training), highest degree achieved, and clinical practice status.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated for demographics using SAS v9.4 (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC). Citations were ranked per number of recommendations, with the submission results divided into 2 categories: peer-reviewed and non–peer-reviewed publications. Further, submissions were tabulated per journal source and publication date.

Program Participation

We established a method of distribution with 16 of the 17 US chiropractic programs: 5 responded to the initial e-mail contact, 1 responded to a follow-up e-mail contact, 4 responded after contacting an individual known personally by 1 of the authors, 5 program faculty lists were obtained via hand retrieval from a program website, and 1 list was retrieved by contacting the program's human resources department. Of the US programs, 6 programs did not share faculty e-mail lists but agreed to distribute the survey via an e-mail to faculty members on our behalf. Five programs shared complete faculty e-mail lists. We manually retrieved e-mail lists from the websites of 5 additional US programs due to an absence of response after multiple attempts and approaches. One program was unresponsive to multiple e-mail requests to direct individuals, general Web inquiry, and voice mails left at human resources.

We established a method of distribution with 14 of 24 programs outside the United States: 9 responded to the initial email inquiry, 2 responded to follow-up inquiries, and 2 responded to inquiries submitted via Web inquiry or program website. Of those, 5 chiropractic program faculty received direct e-mails, while 9 programs agreed to forward the survey invitation to their faculty. The 11 chiropractic programs that did not participate were unresponsive to at least 2 e-mail requests to direct individuals as well as general Web inquiry. E-mails were primarily sent in English but also included duplicate text converted via Google Translate when appropriate. The authors chose not to attempt to communicate with human resource departments via phone in some cases due to time zone differences and potential language barriers.

The survey was e-mailed directly to 713 chiropractic program faculty members (108 international in 5 programs and 605 US in 10 programs) and indirectly to 14 programs worldwide (6 US and 9 international). Figure 2 shows a map of chiropractic program distribution worldwide.

Figure 2.

Global map of chiropractic education institutions.

Figure 2.

Global map of chiropractic education institutions.

Faculty Respondents

While 173 respondents completed the welcome screen and 24 declined participation, only 45 respondents completed the entire survey through the demographic information section; 47 respondents submitted articles. The response rate is not possible to compute due to the unknown distribution number, but we estimate that it is below 5%. The mean age of respondents was 50.2 (SD = 9.8) years, with the majority female (n = 30) and chiropractors (n = 34). Slightly over half were full-time (n = 24), with the average time teaching in a chiropractic program at 12.97 (SD = 10.6) years. Thirty reported formal training in an evidence-based practice within the past 5 years and spent an average of 7.2 (SD = 3.36) hours per week reading professional literature. Most respondents were involved in classroom instruction of clinical sciences (n = 16) or research (n = 13), with most nonengaged in clinical practice (n = 28). Table 1 presents the remaining demographic information for the sample.

Table 1.

Respondent Demographics of the Chiropractic Faculty Survey

Respondent Demographics of the Chiropractic Faculty Survey
Respondent Demographics of the Chiropractic Faculty Survey

Article Citations

Respondents submitted a mean (SD, range) of 4.5 (2.5, 1–10) articles. One hundred and twenty-six peer-reviewed publications were submitted as essential literature for the chiropractic profession. Twenty-five submissions were non–peer reviewed in nature, 19 of which were published textbooks. Recommended articles were published in the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics (n = 30), Spine (n = 14), The Spine Journal (n = 9), Chiropractic and Manual Therapy (n = 8), Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association (n = 7), and a variety of other chiropractic, manual/physical therapy, and internal medicine journals. Publication years ranged from 1979 to 2015; most publication dates fell in the 2006–2010 (n = 38) and 2011–2015 (n = 63) ranges.

Table 2 reports the 126 peer-reviewed submissions. Citations are listed first by the number of recommendations by survey respondents and then alphabetically by title and author/citation. A quotation from the recommending respondents is provided demonstrating the importance of the article. Articles highlighted in gray are available currently on the WFC Suggested Reading List for Chiropractic (accessed May 18, 2017).

Table 2 -.

Peer-Reviewed Publications (Submissions if > 1)a

Peer-Reviewed Publications (Submissions if > 1)a
Peer-Reviewed Publications (Submissions if > 1)a

Table 3 reports the 25 non–peer-reviewed submissions, listed first by number of recommendations and then alphabetically by title and author/publisher or source, also with a quotation from the recommending respondent.

Table 3.

Non–Peer-Reviewed Publicationsa

Non–Peer-Reviewed Publicationsa
Non–Peer-Reviewed Publicationsa

Literature With Multiple Recommendations

Eighteen peer-reviewed articles and 1 textbook received multiple recommendations. An article by Cassidy and colleagues, “Risk of vertebrobasilar stroke and chiropractic care: results of a population-based case control and case-crossover study,” received 11 submissions as essential literature for chiropractors.7  Second in ranking was Bronfort et al,8  “Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report.” Five articles received 3 recommendations: “A theoretical model for the development of a diagnosis-based clinical decision rule for the management of patients with spinal pain” (Murphy9), “Clinical effectiveness of manual therapy for the management of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions: a systematic review and update of the UK evidence report” (Clar et al10), “Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: a joint clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society” (Chou et al3), “Dose-response and efficacy of spinal manipulation for care of chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial” (Haas et al11), and “Review of methods used by chiropractors to determine the site for applying manipulation” (Triano et al12).

Twelve additional submissions (11 peer-reviewed articles and 1 book) were recommended twice. Of the articles, 1 was regarding chiropractic and stroke,13  5 regarding basic science,1418  and 5 regarding clinical management of spine pain.1923  The textbook submitted twice was that of Murphy.24 

Peer-Reviewed Literature With Single Recommendations

The predominance of submissions primarily referenced clinically applicable topics, including treatment of neck/back pain/headaches, diagnostic accuracy, specific case studies, and treatment of certain populations.21,2573  Many articles considered essential addressed basic science issues, such as mechanisms, biomechanics, chemical effects, and other investigations.29,7499  There were several educationally themed submissions regarding ethics, consensus terminology, attitudes, and learning techniques.100109  Another theme was a significant amount of clinical decision-making or guideline-based treatment topics.70,110118  Several submissions regarded profession-wide issues, including future direction and the subluxation debate, and others regarded current state of research and profession-wide policies.119127 

Non–Peer-Reviewed Literature With Single Recommendations

Nine textbooks were recommended encompassing clinical examination,128,129  decision making/management,130132  or technique/treatment133136  of and by chiropractors. Six textbooks were recommended, including evidence-based clinical practice,137  neurobiologic mechanisms,138  biomedical ethics,139  biochemistry,140  a single-volume anatomy atlas,141  and 2 regarding immunology.142,143  Five submissions in this category were summaries or overviews.144,145  Three submissions were compilations available through governmental process or distribution.146148 

Comparison of Essential Literature Findings to WFC Suggested Reading List

Articles highlighted in Table 2 identify readings common to the Essential Literature for Chiropractic: International Faculty survey and the WFC Suggested Reading List. Forty-five (36%) of the readings were shared by both lists. Among the Essential Literature readings not included in the WFC offerings, many recommendations were for articles that would guide the thinking of novice chiropractic practitioners. For example, chiropractic faculty recommended 13 papers on key clinical trials or observational studies on chiropractic, spinal manipulation, or manual therapy techniques.25,29,32,34,44,60,62,64,65,72  These teachers cited numerous articles (n = 9) on clinical decision making, such as classification systems, algorithms, or clinical prediction rules.9,19,42,51,70,102,110,111,149  Recent systematic reviews, clinical guidelines, and best practices related to conservative care of musculoskeletal conditions also garnered many endorsements (n = 9).37,39,47,109,114,115,118,150,151  Faculty also suggested articles on clinical assessment or training methods (n = 7), case studies (n = 4), outcomes assessment (n = 3), and adverse events (n = 3). Other common topics included those on models or mechanisms of pathology or interventions (n = 14) as well as professional issues or debates (n = 11).

Qualitative Comments to the Survey

Some respondents included qualitative comments in their responses to the survey. Several who declined participation stated they were not chiropractors or that they taught nonchiropractic courses, such as business. This response contrasted with the survey invitation, which was open to all chiropractic program faculty regardless of their training as chiropractors or the types of classes they taught. Others declined, as they considered themselves administrators or researchers rather than faculty members. Several other declines noted that they were not up to date with chiropractic professional literature, stating, “I can't think of 3” or “not something I do regularly.” Other nonrespondents noted that they had declined participation but received another request or were concerned that there was not information about how the survey would be used and that “what is essential today might be outdated next year.” Finally, 1 respondent suggested that the time and effort of this survey was redundant to a program under development through the WFC for a suggested reading list for chiropractic.

This survey of international chiropractic program faculty was a follow-up evaluation from a survey of chiropractic research leaders on the essential literature for the chiropractic profession. We made a concerted effort to reach faculty members in all chiropractic educational programs (n = 41) listed on the WFC Web page; however, only 47 respondents from 16 chiropractic programs submitted citations. While the estimated response rate (<5%) was disappointing, and much lower than is typical of surveys of chiropractors,152  those who participated provided thoughtful responses, resulting in a lengthier list than our previous survey.1  The greater response rate from female faculty is unexpected. We suspect that chiropractic faculty worldwide is not represented by more females than males—particularly a 3:1 ratio—although these statistics are not readily known. An online study of faculty in 2008 showed a response rate of females 12% higher than males.153  Although we cannot speculate regarding the percentage of respondents, this is an interesting correlation. Note also that respondents are primarily from “classroom: clinical sciences” and “research.”

The results of the survey provide a useful resource for clinicians, educators, and students and provide a list for essential reading, and should be considered a complement to the WFC Suggested Reading List for Chiropractic, an online resource inspired by our initial survey of Essential Literature for the Chiropractic Profession and first published as this current survey was in its implementation stage. Essential readings with numerous recommendations from multiple participants included the management of low back pain and neck pain, basic science and biomechanical investigations of spinal manipulation, the effectiveness of manual therapy interventions, teaching and application of chiropractic techniques, outcomes assessment, and professional issues for chiropractic. Interestingly, our comparison of the Essential Literature and the WFC Suggested Reading List found important gaps in topics of interest to chiropractic faculty. Indeed, 64% of Essential Literature articles were not included on the Reading List, such as those on chiropractic education or clinical prediction rules. Chiropractic faculty in this survey also recommended many recent articles not added to WFC Suggested Reading List (although some may have been disseminated through the “This Week's Papers” function of the website). Reading List curators may bear our findings in mind when updating articles to ensure that the offerings are useful not only for readers well versed in the chiropractic literature who might be seeking new information but also for students, novice clinicians, and chiropractic faculty who require access to foundational works.

Most of the recommended peer-reviewed literature included studies high in strength of research or generalizability/applicability (systematic reviews, clinical trials, consensus panels, and so on). A few lower-level-evidence pieces (e.g., case studies and case series) were recommended. Conflict may arise regarding whether lower-level evidence may be considered “essential.” While the rationale for choosing case studies over other, higher levels of evidence is not known, some respondents may consider case reports “essential” due to the uniqueness of the case or for the lessons they offer chiropractic students who are learning to recognize common clinical presentations and diagnose complex health conditions. Chiropractic faculty members are encouraged to frame case studies within the context of the level of evidence they provide and to train students to seek information from systematic reviews and randomized clinical trials whenever these are available.137 

The challenges we encountered while implementing this survey may be of similar concern for researchers attempting to conduct studies with chiropractic faculty both in the United States and internationally. We discovered that there is no established, reliable, and current mechanism for communicating with faculty members across chiropractic programs. The WFC was efficient and responsive in sharing contact information. However, we had difficulty reaching several institutions either because the contact was not current or because the school officials did not respond to our requests for information. When chiropractic institutions did not reply to our requests, we attempted to gather faculty contact information directly from the educational institution's website. However, the chiropractor faculty and departments at some educational institutions were not identifiable on the designated website. While this may be understandable in some instances, we found some nonresponse (to phone calls or e-mails) somewhat unexpected from an academic institution. Of more concern is that prospective and current chiropractic students may not have access to up-to-date background or contact information about their faculty members, nor is the composition of the faculty at some chiropractic institutions transparent to those outside their organizations.

While we spent considerable time and thought developing and testing our Web mechanism for data entry and ease of use, we strive to clarify the extensive work that was necessary to compile the list of faculty. The WFC was efficient in responding to our list of international chiropractic programs, which included contact information and multiple names. The Association for Chiropractic Colleges (ACC) is another resource for information and collaboration. Membership in both organizations (1 by individual and 1 by institution) does come with a fee. Involvement is either on an administrative level or by incurring substantial cost in attending conferences. Further, membership in such chiropractic associations may be closed to faculty members who are nonchiropractors, as were 20% of our survey respondents. We are aware of only 1 other resource for connecting faculty through a listserv of members through the American Chiropractic Association (ACA), although the European Chiropractors' Union (ECU) also appears to have that capacity.154  To our knowledge, the ACA list is not widely used, and we were unable to ascertain if the ECU maintains a faculty listserv by a review of their website.

In our information age, should we be able to easily form a chiropractic faculty association? Should this be a subset of the WFC? Whether through the rigors of existing organizational structure or through a more informal social media prospect, this seems a viable and beneficial option. While we are no longer interested in pursuing a compilation of essential literature, a grassroots platform (as well as a vetting mechanism for its use) would surely provide for a low-cost, feasible mechanism for establishing communication, fostering collaborations, and conducting research with chiropractic faculty worldwide.

Limitations

The response rate to this survey was poor. While the acquisition of faculty contact information was favorable for some chiropractic programs, it was very challenging to obtain cooperation and/or responses from many others. While we could contact most of the US chiropractic programs, many international chiropractic programs did not reply to our requests for information. Therefore, we are not able to make a comparison of readings lists provided by faculty from different geographic regions, as any conclusions we might make based on such an underrepresentative analysis would be spurious at best.

A systematic approach to surveying educators in all international chiropractic institutions was accomplished. The results of this survey provide a cursory list of essential literature for the chiropractic profession. An interesting follow-up or related study would be an examination of the scientific literature used in chiropractic program syllabi. We recommend establishment of a chiropractic faculty registry for ease of communication and collaboration. This could be done under a current established organization, such as the WFC, or alternatively as an international entity affiliated with the ACC.

The authors wish to acknowledge the Palmer College of Chiropractic and the Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research for supporting the human and technical resources allocated to this project.

No conflicts of interest and no disclaimers to declare. Although Palmer College of Chiropractic supported this research efforts indirectly, no specific funding was received or requested to support this study.

1
Mansholt
BA,
Stites
JS,
Derby
DC,
Boesch
RJ,
Salsbury
SA.
Essential literature for the chiropractic profession: a survey of chiropractic research leaders
.
Chiropr Man Therap
.
2013
;
21
(
1
):
33
. .
2
Druss
BG,
Marcus
SC.
Growth and decentralization of the medical literature: implications for evidence-based medicine
.
J Med Libr Assoc
.
2005
;
93
(
4
):
499
501
. .
3
Chou
R,
Qaseem
A,
Snow
V,
et al.
Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: a joint clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society
.
Ann Intern Med
.
2007
;
147
(
7
):
478
491
. .
4
The EQUATOR Network | Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of Health Research
.
2015
.
5
Cochrane Trusted evidence
.
Informed decisions. Better health
.
http://www.cochrane.org. Accessed February 20,
2017
.
6
Home—ClinicalTrials.gov. https://clinicaltrials.gov. Accessed February 20,
2017
.
7
Cassidy
JD,
Boyle
E,
Côté
P,
et al.
Risk of vertebrobasilar stroke and chiropractic care: results of a population-based case-control and case-crossover study
.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
.
2008
;
33
(
4 suppl
):
S176
S183
. doi:.
8
Bronfort
G,
Haas
M,
Evans
R,
Leininger
B,
Triano
J.
Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report
.
Chiropr Osteopat
.
2010
;
18
:
3
. doi:.
9
Murphy
DR,
Hurwitz
EL.
A theoretical model for the development of a diagnosis-based clinical decision rule for the management of patients with spinal pain
.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord
.
2007
;
8
:
75
. doi:.
10
Clar
C,
Tsertsvadze
A,
Court
R,
Hundt
GL,
Clarke
A,
Sutcliffe
P.
Clinical effectiveness of manual therapy for the management of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions: systematic review and update of UK evidence report
.
Chiropr Man Therap
.
2014
;
22
(
1
):
12
. doi:.
11
Haas
M,
Vavrek
D,
Peterson
D,
Polissar
N,
Neradilek
MB.
Dose-response and efficacy of spinal manipulation for care of chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial
.
Spine J
.
2014
;
14
(
7
):
1106
1116
. doi:.
12
Triano
JJ,
Budgell
B,
Bagnulo
A,
et al.
Review of methods used by chiropractors to determine the site for applying manipulation
.
Chiropr Man Therap
.
2013
;
21
(
1
):
36
. doi:.
13
Tuchin
P.
Chiropractic and stroke: association or causation?
Int J Clin Pract
.
2013
;
67
(
9
):
825
833
. doi:.
14
Cramer
G,
Budgell
B,
Henderson
C,
Khalsa
P,
Pickar
J.
Basic science research related to chiropractic spinal adjusting: the state of the art and recommendations revisited
.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
.
29
(
9
):
726
761
. doi:.
15
Cramer
GD,
Henderson
CNR,
Little
JW,
Daley
C,
Grieve
TJ.
Zygapophyseal joint adhesions after induced hypomobility
.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
.
2010
;
33
(
7
):
508
518
. doi:.
16
Pickar
JG,
Bolton
PS.
Spinal manipulative therapy and somatosensory activation
.
J Electromyogr Kinesiol
.
2012
;
22
(
5
):
785
794
. doi:.
17
Herzog
W.
The biomechanics of spinal manipulation
.
J Bodyw Mov Ther
.
2010
;
14
(
3
):
280
286
. doi:.
18
Bialosky
JE,
Bishop
MD,
Price
DD,
Robinson
ME,
George
SZ.
The mechanisms of manual therapy in the treatment of musculoskeletal pain: a comprehensive model
.
Man Ther
.
2009
;
14
(
5
):
531
538
. doi:.
19
Vining
R,
Potocki
E,
Seidman
M,
Morgenthal
AP.
An evidence-based diagnostic classification system for low back pain
.
J Can Chiropr Assoc
.
2013
;
57
(
3
):
189
204
. .
20
Maiers
M,
Bronfort
G,
Evans
R,
et al.
Spinal manipulative therapy and exercise for seniors with chronic neck pain
.
Spine J
.
2014
;
14
(
9
):
1879
1889
. doi:.
21
Rubinstein
SM,
van Middelkoop
M,
Assendelft
WJJ,
de Boer
MR,
van Tulder
MW.
Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low-back pain: an update of a Cochrane review
.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
.
2011
;
36
(
13
):
E825
E846
. doi:.
22
Hurwitz
EL,
Carragee
EJ,
van der Velde
G,
et al.
Treatment of neck pain: noninvasive interventions: results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders
.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
.
2008
;
33
(
4 suppl
):
S123
S152
. doi:.
23
Baker
G,
Farabaugh
R,
Augat
TJ,
Hawk
C.
Algorithms for the chiropractic management of acute and chronic spine-related pain
.
Top Integr Heal Care
.
2015
.
24
Murphy
DR.
Clinical Reasoning in Spine Pain. Volume I: Primary Management of Low Back Disorders Using the CRISP Protocols (Volume 1): Dr. Donald R. Murphy
.
Pawtucket, RI: CRISP Education and Research, LLC;
2013
.
25
Murphy
DR,
Hurwitz
EL,
Gregory
A,
Clary
R.
A nonsurgical approach to the management of patients with cervical radiculopathy: a prospective observational cohort study
.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
.
2006
;
29
(
4
):
279
287
. doi:.
26
Clement
RC,
Welander
A,
Stowell
C,
et al.
A proposed set of metrics for standardized outcome reporting in the management of low back pain
.
Acta Orthop
.
2015
:
1
11
. doi:.
27
George
JW,
Skaggs
CD,
Thompson
PA,
Nelson
DM,
Gavard
JA,
Gross
GA.
A randomized controlled trial comparing a multimodal intervention and standard obstetrics care for low back and pelvic pain in pregnancy
.
Am J Obstet Gynecol
.
2013
;
208
(
4
):
295.e1
295.e7
. doi:.
28
Leaver
AM,
Maher
CG,
Herbert
RD,
et al.
A randomized controlled trial comparing manipulation with mobilization for recent onset neck pain
.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil
.
2010
;
91
(
9
):
1313
1318
. doi:.
29
Enix
DE,
Scali
F,
Pontell
ME.
The cervical myodural bridge, a review of literature and clinical implications
.
J Can Chiropr Assoc
.
2014
;
58
(
2
):
184
192
. .
30
Carnes
D,
Mars
TS,
Mullinger
B,
Froud
R,
Underwood
M.
Adverse events and manual therapy: a systematic review
.
Man Ther
.
2010
;
15
(
4
):
355
363
. doi:.
31
Kaminski
M,
Boal
R.
An effect of ascorbic acid on delayed-onset muscle soreness
.
Pain
.
1992
;
50
(
3
):
317
321
. .
32
Albert
HB,
Sorensen
JS,
Christensen
BS,
Manniche
C.
Antibiotic treatment in patients with chronic low back pain and vertebral bone edema (Modic type 1 changes): a double-blind randomized clinical controlled trial of efficacy
.
Eur Spine J
.
2013
;
22
(
4
):
697
707
. doi:.
33
Croft
A.
Appropriateness of cervical spine manipulation in disc herniation: a survey of practitioners
.
Chiropr Tech
.
1996
;
8
(
4
):
178
181
.
34
Bakris
G,
Dickholtz
M,
Meyer
PM,
et al.
Atlas vertebra realignment and achievement of arterial pressure goal in hypertensive patients: a pilot study
.
J Hum Hypertens
.
2007
;
21
(
5
):
347
352
. doi:.
35
Haldeman
S,
Rubinstein
SM.
Cauda equina syndrome in patients undergoing manipulation of the lumbar spine
.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
.
1992
;
17
(
12
):
1469
1473
. .
36
Cotton
BA.
Chiropractic care of a 47-year-old woman with chronic Bell's palsy: a case study
.
J Chiropr Med
.
2011
;
10
(
4
):
288
293
. doi:.
37
Huggins
T,
Boras
AL,
Gleberzon
BJ,
Popescu
M,
Bahry
LA.
Clinical effectiveness of the activator adjusting instrument in the management of musculoskeletal disorders: a systematic review of the literature
.
J Can Chiropr Assoc
.
2012
;
56
(
1
):
49
57
. .
38
Ammendolia
C,
Chow
N.
Clinical outcomes for neurogenic claudication using a multimodal program for lumbar spinal stenosis: a retrospective study
.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
.
2015
;
38
(
3
):
188
194
. doi:.
39
Walker
BF,
French
SD,
Grant
W,
Green
S.
Combined chiropractic interventions for low-back pain
.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
.
2010
;
(4):CD005427.
doi:.
40
Standaert
CJ,
Friedly
J,
Erwin
MW,
et al.
Comparative effectiveness of exercise, acupuncture, and spinal manipulation for low back pain
.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
.
2011
;
36
(
21 suppl
):
S120
S130
. doi:.
41
Hill
JC,
Whitehurst
DGT,
Lewis
M,
et al.
Comparison of stratified primary care management for low back pain with current best practice (STarT Back): a randomised controlled trial
.
Lancet
.
2011
;
378
(
9802
):
1560
1571
. doi:.
42
Cleland
JA,
Fritz
JM,
Kulig
K,
et al.
Comparison of the effectiveness of three manual physical therapy techniques in a subgroup of patients with low back pain who satisfy a clinical prediction rule: a randomized clinical trial
.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
.
2009
;
34
(
25
):
2720
2729
. doi:.
43
Hancock
MJ,
Koes
B,
Ostelo
R,
Peul
W.
Diagnostic accuracy of the clinical examination in identifying the level of herniation in patients with sciatica
.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
.
2011
;
36
(
11
):
E712
E719
. doi:.
44
Jm
C,
Feller
J,
Cox-Cid
J.
Distraction chiropractic adjusting: clinical application and outcomes of 1,000 cases
.
Top Clin Chiropr
.
1996
;
3
(
3
):
45
. .
45
Senna
MK,
Machaly
SA.
Does maintained spinal manipulation therapy for chronic nonspecific low back pain result in better long-term outcome?
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
.
2011
;
36
(
18
):
1427
1437
. doi:.
46
Haas
M,
Spegman
A,
Peterson
D,
Aickin
M,
Vavrek
D.
Dose response and efficacy of spinal manipulation for chronic cervicogenic headache: a pilot randomized controlled trial
.
Spine J
.
2010
;
10
(
2
):
117
128
. doi:.
47
Blanchette
M-A,
Bussières
A,
Stochkendahl
MJ,
Boruff
J,
Harrison P.
Effectiveness
and economic evaluation of chiropractic care for the treatment of low back pain: a systematic review protocol
.
Syst Rev
.
2015
;
4
(
1
):
30
. doi:.
48
Tait
MJ,
Levy
J,
Nowell
M,
et al.
Improved outcome after lumbar microdiscectomy in patients shown their excised disc fragments: a prospective, double blind, randomised, controlled trial
.
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry
.
2009
;
80
(
9
):
1044
1046
. doi:.
49
Anderson
B,
Pitsinger
A.
Improvement in chronic muscle fasciculations with dietary change: a suspected case of gluten neuropathy
.
J Chiropr Med
.
2014
;
13
(
3
):
188
191
. doi:.
50
Deyo
RA,
Jarvik
JG,
Chou
R.
Low back pain in primary care
.
BMJ
.
2014
;
349:g4266.
.
51
Farabaugh
RJ,
Dehen
MD,
Hawk
C.
Management of chronic spine-related conditions: consensus recommendations of a multidisciplinary panel
.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
.
2010
;
33
(
7
):
484
492
. doi:.
52
Murphy
DR,
Hurwitz
EL,
Gregory
AA.
Manipulation in the presence of cervical spinal cord compression: a case series
.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
.
29
(
3
):
236
244
. doi:.
53
Gross
A,
Miller
J,
D'Sylva
J,
et al.
Manipulation or mobilisation for neck pain: a Cochrane Review
.
Man Ther
.
2010
;
15
(
4
):
315
333
. doi:.
54
Hayden
JA,
van Tulder
MW,
Malmivaara
A V,
Koes
BW.
Meta-analysis: exercise therapy for nonspecific low back pain
.
Ann Intern Med
.
2005
;
142
(
9
):
765
775
. .
55
Peterson
CK,
Schmid
C,
Leemann
S,
Anklin
B,
Humphreys
BK.
Outcomes from magnetic resonance imaging-confirmed symptomatic cervical disk herniation patients treated with high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulative therapy: a prospective cohort study with 3-month follow-up
.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
.
2013
;
36
(
8
):
461
467
. doi:.
56
Goertz
CM,
Pohlman
KA,
Vining
RD,
Brantingham
JW,
Long
CR.
Patient-centered outcomes of high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulation for low back pain: a systematic review
.
J Electromyogr Kinesiol
.
2012
;
22
(
5
):
670
691
. doi:.
57
Downie
A,
Williams
CM,
Henschke
N,
et al.
Red flags to screen for malignancy and fracture in patients with low back pain: systematic review
.
BMJ
.
2013
;
347:f7095.
58
Whedon
JM,
Song
Y,
Mackenzie
TA,
Phillips
RB,
Lukovits
TG,
Lurie
JD.
Risk of stroke after chiropractic spinal manipulation in Medicare B beneficiaries aged 66 to 99 years with neck pain
.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
.
2015
;
38
(
2
):
93
101
. doi:.
59
Dagenais
S,
Brady
O,
Haldeman
S.
Shared decision making through informed consent in chiropractic management of low back pain
.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
.
35
(
3
):
216
226
. doi:.
60
Mangum
K,
Partna
L,
Vavrek
D.
Spinal manipulation for the treatment of hypertension: a systematic qualitative literature review
.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
.
35
(
3
):
235
243
. doi:.
61
Bronfort
G,
Evans
R,
Anderson
AV,
Svendsen
KH,
Bracha
Y,
Grimm
RH.
Spinal manipulation, medication, or home exercise with advice for acute and subacute neck pain: a randomized trial
.
Ann Intern Med
.
2012
;
156
:
1
10
. doi:.
62
Delitto
A,
Piva
SR,
Moore
CG,
et al.
Surgery versus nonsurgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis: a randomized trial
.
Ann Intern Med
.
2015
;
162
(
7
):
465
473
. doi:.
63
Foster
NE,
Hartvigsen
J,
Croft
PR.
Taking responsibility for the early assessment and treatment of patients with musculoskeletal pain: a review and critical analysis
.
Arthritis Res Ther
.
2012
;
14
(
1
):
205
. doi:.
64
Bishop
PB,
Quon
JA,
Fisher
CG,
Dvorak
MFS.
The Chiropractic Hospital-Based Interventions Research Outcomes (CHIRO) study: a randomized controlled trial on the effectiveness of clinical practice guidelines in the medical and chiropractic management of patients with acute mechanical low back pain
.
Spine J
.
2010
;
10
(
12
):
1055
1064
. doi:.
65
Weigel
PA,
Hockenberry
J,
Bentler
SE,
Wolinsky
FD.
The comparative effect of episodes of chiropractic and medical treatment on the health of older adults
.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
.
37
(
3
):
143
154
. doi:.
66
Holt
KR,
Haavik
H,
Elley
CR.
The effects of manual therapy on balance and falls: a systematic review
.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
.
35
(
3
):
227
234
. doi:.
67
da C Menezes Costa L, Maher CG, Hancock MJ, McAuley JH, Herbert RD, Costa LOP
.
The prognosis of acute and persistent low-back pain: a meta-analysis
.
CMAJ
.
2012
;
184
(
11
):
E613
E624
. doi:.
68
Battié
MC,
Videman
T,
Kaprio
J,
et al.
The Twin Spine Study: contributions to a changing view of disc degeneration
.
Spine J
.
9
(
1
):
47
59
. doi:.
69
Francio
VT,
Boesch
R,
Tunning
M.
Treatment of a patient with posterior cortical atrophy (PCA) with chiropractic manipulation and Dynamic Neuromuscular Stabilization (DNS): A case report
.
J Can Chiropr Assoc
.
2015
;
59
(
1
):
37
45
. .
70
Murphy
DR,
Hurwitz
EL.
Application of a diagnosis-based clinical decision guide in patients with low back pain
.
Chiropr Man Therap
.
2011
;
19
:
26
. doi:.
71
Rodine
RJ,
Aker
P.
Trigeminal neuralgia and chiropractic care: a case report
.
J Can Chiropr Assoc
.
2010
;
54
(
3
):
177
186
. .
72
UK BEAM Trial Team
.
United Kingdom back pain exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomised trial: effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care
.
BMJ
.
2004
;
329
(
7479
):
1377
. doi:.
73
Vos
T,
Flaxman
AD,
Naghavi
M,
et al.
Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010
.
Lancet
.
2012
;
380
(
9859
):
2163
2196
. doi:.
74
Panjabi
MM.
A hypothesis of chronic back pain: ligament subfailure injuries lead to muscle control dysfunction
.
Eur Spine J
.
2005
;
15
(
5
):
668
676
. doi:.
75
Daligadu
J,
Haavik
H,
Yielder
PC,
Baarbe
J,
Murphy
B.
Alterations in cortical and cerebellar motor processing in subclinical neck pain patients following spinal manipulation
.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
.
2013
;
36
(
8
):
527
537
. doi:.
76
Koppenhaver
SL,
Fritz
JM,
Hebert
JJ,
et al.
Association between history and physical examination factors and change in lumbar multifidus muscle thickness after spinal manipulation in patients with low back pain
.
J Electromyogr Kinesiol
.
2012
;
22
(
5
):
724
731
. doi:.
77
Fritz
JM,
Koppenhaver
SL,
Kawchuk
GN,
Teyhen
DS,
Hebert
JJ,
Childs
JD.
Preliminary investigation of the mechanisms underlying the effects of manipulation: exploration of a multivariate model including spinal stiffness, multifidus recruitment, and clinical findings
.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
.
2011
;
36
(
21
):
1772
1781
. doi:.
78
Triano
JJ.
Biomechanics of spinal manipulative therapy
.
Spine J
.
1
(
2
):
121
130
.
2015
.
79
Carrick
FR.
Changes in brain function after manipulation of the cervical spine
.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
.
1997
;
20
(
8
):
529
545
. .
80
Niazi
IK,
Türker
KS,
Flavel
S,
Kinget
M,
Duehr
J,
Haavik
H.
Changes in H-reflex and V-waves following spinal manipulation
.
Exp Brain Res
.
2015
;
233
(
4
):
1165
1173
. doi:.
81
Coronado
RA,
Gay
CW,
Bialosky
JE,
Carnaby
GD,
Bishop
MD,
George
SZ.
Changes in pain sensitivity following spinal manipulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
.
J Electromyogr Kinesiol
.
2012
;
22
(
5
):
752
767
. doi:.
82
Roy
RA,
Boucher
JP,
Comtois
AS.
Effects of a manually assisted mechanical force on cutaneous temperature
.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
.
2008
;
31
(
3
):
230
236
. doi:.
83
Lehman
GJ,
Vernon
H,
McGill
SM.
Effects of a mechanical pain stimulus on erector spinae activity before and after a spinal manipulation in patients with back pain: a preliminary investigation
.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
.
24
(
6
):
402
406
. doi:.
84
Cramer
GD,
Ross
K,
Pocius
J,
et al.
Evaluating the relationship among cavitation, zygapophyseal joint gapping, and spinal manipulation: an exploratory case series
.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
.
2011
;
34
(
1
):
2
14
. doi:.
85
Maeda
Y,
Kettner
N,
Holden
J,
et al.
Functional deficits in carpal tunnel syndrome reflect reorganization of primary somatosensory cortex
.
Brain
.
2014
;
137
(
pt 6
):
1741
1752
. doi:.
86
Kawchuk
GN,
Carrasco
A,
Beecher
G,
Goertzen
D,
Prasad
N.
Identification of spinal tissues loaded by manual therapy: a robot-based serial dissection technique applied in porcine motion segments
.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
.
2010
;
35
(
22
):
1983
1990
. doi:.
87
Skyba
DA,
Radhakrishnan
R,
Rohlwing
JJ,
Wright
A,
Sluka
KA.
Joint manipulation reduces hyperalgesia by activation of monoamine receptors but not opioid or GABA receptors in the spinal cord
.
Pain
.
2003
;
106
(
1–2
):
159
168
. .
88
Pérez
ML,
Merí
A,
Ruano
D.
Manual Y Atlas Fotográfico de Anatomía Del Aparato Locomotor
.
2015
.
89
Nathan
M,
Keller
TS.
Measurement and analysis of the in vivo posteroanterior impulse response of the human thoracolumbar spine: a feasibility study
.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
.
1994
;
17
(
7
):
431
441
. .
90
Pickar
JG.
Neurophysiological effects of spinal manipulation
.
Spine J
.
2
(
5
):
357
371
.
2015
.
91
De Witt
JK,
Osterbauer
PJ,
Stelmach
GE,
Fuhr
AW.
Optoelectric measurement of changes in leg length inequality resulting from isolation tests
.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
.
1994
;
17
(
8
):
530
538
. .
92
Kawchuk
GN,
Fryer
J,
Jaremko
JL,
Zeng
H,
Rowe
L,
Thompson
R.
Real-time visualization of joint cavitation
.
PLoS One
.
2015
;
10
(
4
):
e0119470
. doi:.
93
Napadow
V,
Liu
J,
Li
M,
et al.
Somatosensory cortical plasticity in carpal tunnel syndrome treated by acupuncture
.
Hum Brain Mapp
.
2007
;
28
(
3
):
159
171
. doi:.
94
Song
X-J,
Gan
Q,
Cao
J-L,
Wang
Z-B,
Rupert
RL.
Spinal manipulation reduces pain and hyperalgesia after lumbar intervertebral foramen inflammation in the rat
.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
.
2006
;
29
(
1
):
5
13
. doi:.
95
Basbaum
AI,
Levine
JD.
The contribution of the nervous system to inflammation and inflammatory disease
.
Can J Physiol Pharmacol
.
1991
;
69
(
5
):
647
651
. .
96
Marshall
P,
Murphy
B.
The effect of sacroiliac joint manipulation on feed-forward activation times of the deep abdominal musculature
.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
.
29
(
3
):
196
202
. doi:.
97
Haavik
H,
Murphy
B.
The role of spinal manipulation in addressing disordered sensorimotor integration and altered motor control
.
J Electromyogr Kinesiol
.
2012
;
22
(
5
):
768
776
. doi:.
98
Korr
IM.
The spinal cord as organizer of disease processes: II. The peripheral autonomic nervous system
.
J Am Osteopath Assoc
.
1979
;
79
(
2
):
82
90
. .
99
Cramer
GD,
Gregerson
DM,
Knudsen
JT,
Hubbard
BB,
Ustas
LM,
Cantu
JA.
The effects of side-posture positioning and spinal adjusting on the lumbar Z joints: a randomized controlled trial with sixty-four subjects
.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
.
2002
;
27
(
22
):
2459
2466
. doi:.
100
Kaminski
M,
Boal
R,
Gillette
RG,
Peterson
DH,
Villnave
TJ.
A model for the evaluation of chiropractic methods
.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
.
1987
;
10
(
2
):
61
64
. .
101
Giuliano
DA,
McGregor
M.
Assessment of a generalizable methodology to assess learning from manikin-based simulation technology
.
J Chiropr Educ
.
2014
;
28
(
1
):
16
20
. doi:.
102
Dehen
MD,
Whalen
WM,
Farabaugh
RJ,
Hawk
C.
Consensus terminology for stages of care: acute, chronic, recurrent, and wellness
.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
.
2010
;
33
(
6
):
458
463
. doi:.
103
McGregor
M,
Puhl
AA,
Reinhart
C,
Injeyan
HS,
Soave
D.
Differentiating intraprofessional attitudes toward paradigms in health care delivery among chiropractic factions: results from a randomly sampled survey
.
BMC Complement Altern Med
.
2014
;
14
:
51
. doi:.
104
Kinsinger
S,
Soave
D.
Ethics education in chiropractic colleges: a North American survey
.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
.
2012
;
35
(
6
):
486
490
. doi:.
105
Kinsinger
FS,
Sutton
W.
Chiropractic leadership in the eradication of sexual abuse
.
J Can Chiropr Assoc
.
2012
;
56
(
1
):
66
74
. .
106
Winterbottom
M,
Boon
H,
Mior
S,
Facey
M.
Informed consent for chiropractic care: Comparing patients' perceptions to the legal perspective
.
Man Ther
.
2015
;
20
(
3
):
463
468
. doi:.
107
McGregor
M,
Giuliano
D.
Manikin-based clinical simulation in chiropractic education
.
J Chiropr Educ
.
2012
;
26
(
1
):
14
23
. .
108
Bialosky
JE,
Bishop
MD,
George
SZ,
Robinson
ME.
Placebo response to manual therapy: something out of nothing?
J Man Manipulative Ther
.
2011
;
19
(
1
):
11
19
. doi:.
109
Gatterman
MI,
Cooperstein
R,
Lantz
C,
Perle
SM,
Schneider
MJ.
Rating specific chiropractic technique procedures for common low back conditions
.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
.
2001
;
24
(
7
):
449
456
. doi:.
110
Flynn
T,
Fritz
J,
Whitman
J,
et al.
A clinical prediction rule for classifying patients with low back pain who demonstrate short-term improvement with spinal manipulation
.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
.
2002
;
27
(
24
):
2835
2843
. doi:.
111
Murphy
DR,
Hurwitz
EL,
Nelson
CF.
A diagnosis-based clinical decision rule for spinal pain part 2: review of the literature
.
Chiropr Osteopat
.
2008
;
16
:
7
. doi:.
112
Koes
BW,
van Tulder
M,
Lin
C-WC,
Macedo
LG,
McAuley
J,
Maher
C.
An updated overview of clinical guidelines for the management of non-specific low back pain in primary care
.
Eur Spine J
.
2010
;
19
(
12
):
2075
2094
. doi:.
113
Wong
JJ,
Côté
P,
Shearer
HM,
et al.
Clinical practice guidelines for the management of conditions related to traffic collisions: a systematic review by the OPTIMa Collaboration
.
Disabil Rehabil
.
2015
;
37
(
6
):
471
489
. doi:.
114
Bussières
AE,
Peterson
C,
Taylor
JAM.
Diagnostic imaging practice guidelines for musculoskeletal complaints in adults—an evidence-based approach: introduction
.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
.
2007
;
30
(
9
):
617
683
. doi:.
115
Bryans
R,
Decina
P,
Descarreaux
M,
et al.
Evidence-based guidelines for the chiropractic treatment of adults with neck pain
.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
.
2014
;
37
(
1
):
42
63
. doi:.
116
Bryans
R,
Descarreaux
M,
Duranleau
M,
et al.
Evidence-based guidelines for the chiropractic treatment of adults with headache
.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
.
2011
;
34
(
5
):
274
289
. doi:.
117
Dagenais
S,
Tricco
AC,
Haldeman
S.
Synthesis of recommendations for the assessment and management of low back pain from recent clinical practice guidelines
.
Spine J
.
2010
;
10
(
6
):
514
529
. doi:.
118
Bussières
A,
Stuber
K.
The Clinical Practice Guideline Initiative: a joint collaboration designed to improve the quality of care delivered by doctors of chiropractic
.
J Can Chiropr Assoc
.
2013
;
57
(
4
):
279
284
. .
119
Nelson
CF,
Lawrence
DJ,
Triano
JJ,
et al.
Chiropractic as spine care: a model for the profession
.
Chiropr Osteopat
.
2005
;
13
:
9
. doi:.
120
Triano
JJ,
Goertz
C,
Weeks
J,
et al.
Chiropractic in North America: toward a strategic plan for professional renewal—outcomes from the 2006 Chiropractic Strategic Planning Conference
.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
.
2010
;
33
(
5
):
395
405
. doi:.
121
Axén
I,
Leboeuf-Yde
C,
Leboeuf-Yde
C,
et al.
Conducting practice-based projects among chiropractors: a manual
.
Chiropr Man Therap
.
2013
;
21
(
1
):
8
. doi:.
122
Murphy
DR,
Schneider
MJ,
Seaman
DR,
Perle
SM,
Nelson
CF.
How can chiropractic become a respected mainstream profession? The example of podiatry
.
Chiropr Osteopat
.
2008
;
16
:
10
. doi:.
123
Bronfort
G.
Spinal manipulation: current state of research and its indications
.
Neurol Clin
.
1999
;
17
(
1
):
91
111
. .
124
Khalsa
PS,
Eberhart
A,
Cotler
A,
Nahin
R.
The 2005 conference on the biology of manual therapies
.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
.
2006
;
29
(
5
):
341
346
. doi:.
125
Good
CJ.
The great subluxation debate: a centrist's perspective
.
J Chiropr Humanit
.
2010
;
17
(
1
):
33
39
. doi:.
126
Eisenberg
DM,
Davis
RB,
Ettner
SL,
et al.
Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990–1997: results of a follow-up national survey
.
JAMA
.
1998
;
280
(
18
):
1569
1575
. .
127
Hartman
SE.
Why do ineffective treatments seem helpful? A brief review
.
Chiropr Osteopat
.
2009
;
17
:
10
. doi:.
128
Cleland
JA,
Koppenhaver
S.
Netter's Orthopaedic Clinical Examination: An Evidence-Based Approach. 2nd ed
.
Philadelphia, PA
:
WB Saunders;
2011
.
129
Epstein
O,
Perkin
G,
Cookson
J,
Watt
I,
Rakhit
R,
Robins
AHG.
Clinical Examination. 4th ed
.
Amsterdam
:
Elsevier;
2008
.
130
Gatterman
MI.
Chiropractic Management of Spine Related Disorders
.
Philadelphia, PA
:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;
2003
.
131
Terrett AGJ
.
Current concepts in vertebrobasilar complications following spinal manipulation
.
Des Moines:
NCMIC
;
2005
. .
132
Haldeman
S.
Principles and Practices of Chiropractic. 3rd ed
.
New York, NY
:
McGraw-Hill;
2004
.
133
Cooperstein
R,
Gleberzon
BJ.
Technique Systems in Chiropractic
.
London
:
Churchill Livingstone;
2004
.
134
Eriksen
K.
Upper Cervical Subluxation Complex: A Review of the Chiropractic and Medical Literature
.
Philadelphia, PA
:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;
2004
.
135
Leach
RA.
The Chiropractic Theories: A Textbook of Scientific Research
.
Philadelphia, PA
:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;
2004
.
136
Liebenson
C.
Rehabilitation of the Spine: A Practitioner's Manual. 2nd ed
.
Philadelphia, PA
:
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;
2006
.
137
Guyatt
G,
Rennie
D,
Meade
MO,
Cook
DJ.
Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: Essentials of Evidence-Based Clinical Practice. 3rd ed
.
New York, NY
:
McGraw-Hill;
2015
.
138
Korr
IM,
ed
.
The Neurobiologic Mechanisms in Manipulative Therapy
.
New York, NY
:
Springer;
1978
.
139
Beauchamp
T.
Principles of Biomedical Ethics
.
New York, NY
:
Oxford University Press;
2012
.
140
Vasudevan
DM,
Sreekumari
S,
Vaidyanathan
K.
Textbook of Biochemistry for Medical Students. 7th ed
.
New Delhi
:
Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers Ltd;
2013
.
141
Putz
R,
Pabst
R,
eds
.
Sobotta—Atlas of Human Anatomy: Head, Neck, Upper Limb, Thorax, Abdomen, Pelvis, Lower Limb. 14th ed
.
Munich
:
Elsevier;
2008
.
142
Coico
R,
Sunshine
G.
Immunology: A Short Course. 6th ed
.
New York, NY
:
John Wiley & Sons Inc;
2009
.
143
Owen
JA,
Punt
J,
Stranford
SA.
Kuby Immunology. 7th ed
.
New York, NY
:
WH Freeman and Company;
2013
.
144
Lederman
E.
The Science and Practice of Manual Therapy
.
Amsterdam
:
Elsevier Health Sciences;
2005
.
145
Update on manipulation and exercise
.
2015
.
146
Agency for Health Care Policy and Research
.
Foreword
.
In
Cherkin
DC,
Mootz
RD,
eds
.
Chiropractic in the United States: Training, Practice, and Research
.
Rockville, MD
:
Agency for Health Care Policy and Research
;
April
1998
.
147
Deyo
RA,
Dworkin
SF,
Amtmann
D,
et al.
Report of the NIH task force on research standards for chronic low back pain
.
Spine J
.
2014
;
14
(
8
):
1375
1391
. doi:.
148
McCrory
DC,
Penzien
DB,
Hasselblad
V,
Gray
RN.
Evidence report: behavioral and physical treatments for tension-type and cervicogenic headache
.
2015
.
149
Baker
GA,
Farabaugh
RJ,
Augat
TJ,
Hawk
C.
Algorithms for the chiropractic management of acute and chronic spine-related pain
.
Top Integr Heal Care
.
2010
;
3
(
4
):
1
10
.
150
Rubinstein
SM,
Terwee
CB,
Assendelft
WJJ,
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
;
38
(
3
):
E158
E177
. doi:.
151
Haldeman
S,
Carroll
L,
Cassidy
JD,
Schubert
J,
Nygren
A.
The Bone and Joint Decade 2000–2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders: executive summary
.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
.
2008
;
33
(
4 suppl
):
S5
S7
. doi:.
152
Russell
ML,
Verhoef
MJ,
Injeyan
HS,
McMorland
DG.
Response rates for surveys of chiropractors
.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther
.
2004
;
27
(
1
):
43
48
. doi:.
153
Smith
WG.
Does gender influence online survey participation? A record-linkage analysis of university faculty online survey response behavior
.
San Jose State Univ SJSU Sch. 2008;1(1). http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/elementary_ed_pub. Accessed May 17,
2017
.
154
What we do—European Chiropractors' Union
.
2017
.

Author notes

Barbara Mansholt is an associate professor in the clinic at Palmer College of Chiropractic (1000 Brady Street, Davenport, IA 52803; barbara.mansholt@palmer.edu). Stacie Salsbury is an assistant professor at the Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research, Palmer College of Chiropractic (741 Brady Street, Davenport, IA 52803; stacie.salsbury@palmer.edu). Lance Corber is the data core manager in the office of data management and biostatistics at Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research, Palmer College of Chiropractic (741 Brady Street, Davenport, IA 52803; lance.corber@palmer.edu). John Stites is a professor and director of community clinics with Palmer College of Chiropractic (2001 52nd Avenue, Moline, IL 61265; stites_j@palmer.edu). Address correspondence to Barbara Mansholt, 1000 Brady Street, Davenport, IA 52803; barbara.mansholt@palmer.edu. This article was received March 7, 2017, revised May 24, 2017, and accepted June 18, 2017.

Concept development: BM, SS, JS. Design: BM, SS, JS, LC. Supervision: BM. Data collection/processing: BM, LC. Analysis/interpretation: LC, SS. Literature search: BM, SS, JS. Writing: BM, SS, LC. Critical review: BM, SS.