Review conclusions by Ernst and Canter regarding spinal manipulation refuted.

Gert Bronfort, Mitchell Haas, David Moher, Lex Bouter, Maurits van Tulder, John Triano, Willem J J Assendelft, Roni Evans, Simon Dagenais, Anthony Rosner
{"title":"Review conclusions by Ernst and Canter regarding spinal manipulation refuted.","authors":"Gert Bronfort,&nbsp;Mitchell Haas,&nbsp;David Moher,&nbsp;Lex Bouter,&nbsp;Maurits van Tulder,&nbsp;John Triano,&nbsp;Willem J J Assendelft,&nbsp;Roni Evans,&nbsp;Simon Dagenais,&nbsp;Anthony Rosner","doi":"10.1186/1746-1340-14-14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In the April 2006 issue of the Journal of Royal Society of Medicine, Ernst and Canter authored a review of the most recent systematic reviews on the effectiveness of spinal manipulation for any condition. The authors concluded that, except for back pain, spinal manipulation is not an effective intervention for any condition and, because of potential side effects, cannot be recommended for use at all in clinical practice. Based on a critical appraisal of their review, the authors of this commentary seriously challenge the conclusions by Ernst and Canter, who did not adhere to standard systematic review methodology, thus threatening the validity of their conclusions. There was no systematic assessment of the literature pertaining to the hazards of manipulation, including comparison to other therapies. Hence, their claim that the risks of manipulation outweigh the benefits, and thus spinal manipulation cannot be recommended as treatment for any condition, was not supported by the data analyzed. Their conclusions are misleading and not based on evidence that allow discrediting of a large body of professionals using spinal manipulation.</p>","PeriodicalId":87173,"journal":{"name":"Chiropractic & osteopathy","volume":"14 ","pages":"14"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1746-1340-14-14","citationCount":"23","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chiropractic & osteopathy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-1340-14-14","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 23

Abstract

In the April 2006 issue of the Journal of Royal Society of Medicine, Ernst and Canter authored a review of the most recent systematic reviews on the effectiveness of spinal manipulation for any condition. The authors concluded that, except for back pain, spinal manipulation is not an effective intervention for any condition and, because of potential side effects, cannot be recommended for use at all in clinical practice. Based on a critical appraisal of their review, the authors of this commentary seriously challenge the conclusions by Ernst and Canter, who did not adhere to standard systematic review methodology, thus threatening the validity of their conclusions. There was no systematic assessment of the literature pertaining to the hazards of manipulation, including comparison to other therapies. Hence, their claim that the risks of manipulation outweigh the benefits, and thus spinal manipulation cannot be recommended as treatment for any condition, was not supported by the data analyzed. Their conclusions are misleading and not based on evidence that allow discrediting of a large body of professionals using spinal manipulation.

恩斯特和坎特关于脊柱操作的综述结论被反驳。
在2006年4月出版的《皇家医学会杂志》上,恩斯特和坎特撰写了一篇综述,综述了最近关于脊椎推拿对任何疾病的有效性的系统综述。作者的结论是,除了背痛,脊柱推拿对任何疾病都不是有效的干预措施,而且由于潜在的副作用,在临床实践中根本不能推荐使用。基于对他们的评论的批判性评价,这篇评论的作者严肃地挑战了恩斯特和坎特的结论,他们没有坚持标准的系统评论方法,从而威胁到他们结论的有效性。没有系统评估有关操作的危害的文献,包括与其他疗法的比较。因此,他们声称操作的风险大于收益,因此脊柱操作不能被推荐作为任何疾病的治疗方法,分析的数据不支持这一说法。他们的结论是误导性的,并没有基于证据,这些证据使大量使用脊柱操纵的专业人员失去了信誉。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信