Chiropractic is at times a very nervous profession. Especially
unnerving is a paper that addresses a serious subject, necessary in its
execution, flawed in its production.
A meta-analysis such as this simply re-states the flaws of other
studies; work
done by others of dubious merit.
Dubious merit because there is no examination of the uniformity of
interventions administered in the studies which they categorise at "spinal
manipulation". Examination of a procedure surely deliniates that procedure
in
detail and presents it to the reader. Just what is "pediatric spinal
manipulation"?
This study is what it is: a precurser to the study being rightly
done. Lets just
see what the adverse effects are of this procedure which seems to define
chiropractors. But first, define the procedure, and don't make any serious
assumptions until that scientific method is applied properly.
This may sound unbelievable, but In my experience (over a decade) of
adjusting hundreds of children there has not been one event that could be
categorised as "adverse". Similarly, in communication with my profession
and
state boards here in Australia, I do not think that one solitary action of
litigation against a chiropractor has been brought for seriously harming
or
death of a child in administrering care. Is this not an astounding
statistic in
comparison with proper medical paediatric care? Bring on the science,
please.
Conflict of Interest:
Registered Chiropractor educated
in University-based undergraduate
paediatric chiropractic and post-
graduate specialisation in upper
cervical chiropractic.
eLetters: ![[Read eLetters]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif){kind=icon}
